Blotty

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 154 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Blotty

• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I thought I told you to go and start your own thread
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  So what are you gonna do if I just say: cool you win, I cant be bothered because of these long posts anymore.. seriously my head hurts

  - its a hollow victory

  - you proved nothing, except you can be excessively annoying and not listen to anyone else's opinion and everything is a contradiction (if you did try and talk to people I suggested I can see why, somewhat, your a waste of time - your right, every other opinion or interpretation is wrong - your not infallible and if you think you are please go and see a doctor)

  - you wasted time arguing with some nobody on the internet

  - you dominated the rhetoric, ignoring things complained when I "quote mined" complained when I cited an entire book complained when I paraphrased

  - failed to prove anything, ever (Firstborn, not having a temporal priority)
  

  You do know saying things, over and over doesn't make you automatically right? no matter how many times its said

  My suggestion: go debate an actual scholar, then maybe people on here will take you seriously

  So please get out of my thread (topic, whatever) - and go and start your own... let others have a say and an actual constructive discussion - you are not welcome until you can make shorter posts

  My final response will follow, though I have barely tried in this one:
  
  

  yeah your right - Id rather you didn't provide sources for your claims they are all as misleading as you.

  For someone who has no credentials you certainly make big claims - which are disputed by people who do - I believe them over you anyday. espeacially on the subject of this topic (thread)

  Furoli - ok a wikipedia source, not credible as anyone can make it say what they like, Ill contact him (somehow) and ask him myself. (your claim will be quoted)

  "you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading"" - another claim without evidence, How do you know I havent read them all before, I can predict what they will have you know (are they all as annoying as you? long posts, when asked to shorten, acts like they know everything)

  "you didn't answer" - shall I point out all the objections you havent answered? , if you dont have to answer neither do I- or go debate Greg Stafford (or a real scholar), you wouldnt dare - I may not have all the resources and time to take you but Im sure there would be some profesor who is more than willing.

  You can say the WTS has no credibility, fine ok - you cant say the same of Edgar Foster (P.HD) or Greg Stafford, because they have never done it.

  "together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts?" - explain all copies of the pre-christian Lxx having the name then... seems odd it was in those, then *poof* gone and in the Hebrew scriptures (but you know what Bible actaully uses the name in the OT? not many, but then claim acccurate bible translation)

  " the latters should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement." - ok then, well interpret the passive in light of Hebrews 1:10, the only interpretation you can get out of that is at some point he had an active role then it went to a passive.. otherwise Paul is just inconsistant because the verb he uses is Passive not active like in Genesis 1:1.

  You should really boot theology when grammatical structures dont agree. - you have no respect for the dia + genitive construction found in many places.

  again in the scriptures I cited before - Did Solomon actaully lift a finger, I doubt it.. cultural thing. why is one saying "Solomon built" then just verses later "[the people] built" - Who made the plan for the building? Solomon - Solomon is the "original cause"

  persay. thats how it worked.

  "The lxx is not inspired" - neither are your councels, they can claim what they like, burden of proof is on you (your scriptural citaions prove nothing, only what you want me to see).. and just because it is not inspired doesnt mean it cant be cited for grammatical structures.

  "which is a valuable source for textual criticism, but is of no importance in this case." - ofcourse now its not, because it disagrees with you.

  Why dont we look up the meaning to the word in a dicitonary? oh wait you threw Vines aside when it disagreed with you. your no better than the WT despite what you claim.

  "and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan." - hmm no - its because Jesus was given the authority too.

  "Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel" - ceased being a sinless (or perfect, same thing really) man and back to archangel, keeps him out of both catergories so he can be a mediator.

  if he is a "person" of God = he cant mediate, because is God

  if he is a sinful human = he cant mediate, because he is sinful

  " according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?" - you like to see scriptures conflict with one another dont you.. ever consider "point of view" or "identification" might of concern? you miss a key scripture but your the expert so you can find it.

  (because im getting bored of you and your excessively long posts, as are others - if you could do shorter posts then maybe ill continue)

  The only class left is one of the classes of angel or sinless man

  (or the demon class, but I dont think that would happen)

  "giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry." - but the word used in John 5:23 is not proskeneo, Its timōsi

  see: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/5-23.htm

  "if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too." - really? context would dictate otherwise..

  "it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - My position is slightly different to what your trying to make out, but ok dude - cool you win

  "he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born."

  - yes you said this already about 3000 times, Im working on a responce to this [false] claim, but for now, its up to you to prove the eternal generation doctrine in light of:

  (choke on these)

  “The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in Spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father’.” - p. 394., note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.

  “The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for {Origen} imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.” - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed.

  also see: https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/search?q=eternal+generation

  "Check THIS " - the quotes come out meaning literally the same... I dont get the persons point. And you wonder why I toss your non scholarly sources aside.

  "are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation?" - because Im humble and not an insensitive [ twit] I can admit when I dont know something because of lack of research.

  "Where did you read this?" - Where in John 1:1 does it say he made the heavens?

  you keep waffling on about The Word "was" "in the beginning" yet fail to address any refutation I have made (about 3).. John was inspiried to write what he wrote, ok - So he knows all the details? you place way to much emphasis on the combination - I agree with Wallace..

  " then he did not create "alone"" - and yet other places in the bible establish this very concept. WHo did he have to "create" with? no one. the agent only does what he says, nothing more.

  " You can see what they said about this verse HERE." - no thanks Ill take scholarly sources over theologians anyday.

  "Why should I?" - for a change prove your claim using actaul scholarly methods, not councels who you claim to be infallible (if the people individually are infallible then so is the coucel, logic) because its not possible.. because in every occurence it has some form of temporal meaning.. and the one called Firstborn is part of the group.

  "The Father is also called the "arkhe" in Revelation 21:6." - theres a subtle difference in Rev 3:14 and Revelation 21:6

  Revelation 3:14 only has arkhe whereas in 21:6 its not only right next to alpha and omega, but also has "and the end" coupled onto it, so not a true paralel. nice try though

  I notice you avoid burden of proof like nobodies business.
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  You can repeat yourself all you like, until I see some actaul scholarly evidence (and not early church quotations) you wont get anywhere with me. Or anyone for that matter.

  "I can recommend THIS, THIS, THIS, and THIS." - these are very misleading and infact in themselves wrong - I could refute these as the quotes while maybe misleading in the authors intentions, still actaully stand - George Howard never said anything about quoting him "incorrectly" he just said they put too much leniance on his work.

  " the unsuspecting reader cannot know what is God's word and what is the Society's." - Do I need to make you look stupid, most if not all bibles do this to some extent - 1 for 1 translation is not actaully possible, every translation is going to add words

  Hvae you ever actaully done translation from 1 langauge to another and tried to convey and accurate meaning?

  "In fact, the date 1914 is very important for the Watchtower," - besides my point..

  "John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from" - a similar verb is used of a certain human.. reserach that one.

  1Peter 3:18 - does not say that actaully, if you bothered to check scholarly sources

  Heres' an example:

  Elip 1

  "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

  Elip 2

  "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). ... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

  Full quote:

  "Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity."

  [Google the citaton]

  you can see by this demonstration that your claim of "quote mining" is 1) without basis for me & "EtT" 2) a claim you cited zero evidence for (For me and others) and 3) doesnt change or alter the message at all elip 1, leaves a bit more in regarding "implications" elip 2 removes the extra bit from elip 1 and doesnt change the meaning at all.

  All that the example shows is some trinitarians bias opinion has been removed, which is besides the point anyhow, I elip to focus attention on what I want you to read without pasting screeds, admittedly this example is stolen from someone else which is also besides the point. The point is even trinitarians themselves admit the NT is only the BASIS for the doctrine and it is not taught in scripture.

  "The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons."

  ("copied" from endnote [11] https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html - read this and reserach it :) )

  "This method does not want to research or understand" - this is something I would love to see you prove about me. Just because I dont agree with your sources means I havent done digging? on what planet?

  Luke 24:39 - you convieniantly omit 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:45 from your list.

  "You continue to avoid the statement" - am I avoiding? or is it just I cant be bothered dealing with you repeating the same stuff over and over, which doesnt make it automatically true.. doesnt make it a fact, you like debating do debate someone who is actaully an apologist, not someone who has other responsibilitys, something you dont seem to understand.

  "Can a creature be honored in the same way ("just as") as God?" - the answer is yes (in some sense of the word) We honor everyone as we do God, we just honor God in some extra ways. [this is a very dummed down explanation]

  ""But when he brings his firstborn into the world, he says: 'Let all God's angels worship [proskuneó - προσκυνέω] him.'"" - you quote this - 2 observations

  1) the angels are told to "worship" him

  2) the same word is used in the LXX of God and humans.. thats how I would answer ""And how do you know that it is the other one?""

  " According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular? " - didnt know someone could distort my point so much they get this out of it.

  Where is another Archangel meantioned in the bible?

  other things are clearly taught in the bible which you ignore...

  "if you are looking for "active" participation, you will find it in Hebrews 1:10." - Hebrews 1:10 must be taken in light of the passive role in John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2 and Col 1:16 (dia + genitive expression) Just 8 verses back it says in Hebrews 1:2 Through the son - so the son did have a role in creation, though is not the creator based on Col 1:16 and changing the forms of the verb and noun.

  Daniel Wallace states "The logos is represented as as creator in a "hands on" sort of way, with the implication of ultimate agent. This is the typical pattern (though, not exclusive) seen in the NT Ultimate agency is ascribed to God the Father (with: upo). Intermediate agency ascribed to Christ (with dia)... Ft:81 [on impersonal agency of the spirit]"

  Greek grammar beyond the basics: 434

  John 1:3 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html

  Hebrews 1:2

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/hebrews-1.html

  Col 1:16

  https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/colossians-1.html

  look at these, nothing taken out of context xD cant be theres nothing that I need to elip.

  "he creates by himself, without any kind of "passive" participation" - the scriptures above would disagree - many scholars and theologians have debated this, many trinitarians have even come to the conclusion - Angels participated in some way, even if that means shouting in praise, still participating (passively) (see NET Bible - Gen 1:26 footnote)

  Your beliefs go against the very grammatical structures that the writers used - if they wanted to say Jesus was the creator they could have just used "Ek autou". The Father alone created through the agent (Jesus)

  Why does the bible explicilty have to say Jesus is "creature" (kind of implied - look at Wallace citation) because he is not just a "creature" - while he is part of creation he holds a very speical position far from any mere "creature"

  John 2:19 - Even A.T Robertson would disagree, which of the church fathers said this? since they are infallible according to you

  "it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - if it contridicts the bible it is, but hey how about i just leave a citation for you to read:

  “Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity” (The Story of Civilization, vol. III [find a pdf version of this book and search this quote])

  "Check: Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' and THIS." - these are simply wrong - cite me an instance, where firstborn followed by a genitive (or in general) where the subject is not part of the catergory it is firstborn of? (not Col 1:15) even [Firstborn of death] its still part of the group "diseases" not an exception to it.

  "branded by you as "apostate"" - thats a wild accusation to make with zero evidence. I never said christendom is apostate..

  "which are about the creation of created things." - John 1 doesnt talk about the creation of the heavens and earth, only earth.. I notice the angels being present is also omitted, not to mention the holy spirit

  John 17:3 - Jesus talks about "before the world was" not before "time" or anything else you want to come up with.

  "not "all other things" - as the WTS brazenly falsifies" - So he made God? thats what 'all' implies, Paul even marks God as a "thing"

  "all" has some 7 -8 meanings in scripture - Paul rarely if ever means everything (without an exception)

  " how do we know that it actually means exactly that here?" - Rev 3:14, Where John follows the model of Micah 5:2 with:

  Arkhon = ruler

  arkhe = begining

  NO exceptions

  In Johns other writings you will never find he uses arkhe for ruler (First cause, originator or anything of the sort)
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  So now I only paraphrase its ok for me to quote? make up your mind

  " its infamous publication in this regard - 'Should You Believe in the Trinity?" - is it? I can find no evidence of this.. and just because part of something is cited, though the whole thing may not agree with your point of view is common practise, why only put this on Jw's? I have never seen it condemed when trinitarians do it - you, with WT writings, I dont say your wrong too, I do say you could be abit more transparent with context though (as could the WT in some cases, but since you like to take my words out of context, ill add that they have never "quote mined")

  "Besides the fact that he was also kicked out of the JW denomination and then wrote a book that the Governing Body is unbiblical" - was he kicked out? have you heard from him what happened? or are you repeating rumours?

  "Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history." -

  funny Iv heard similar about the JW's rendering of John 1:1c, turns out scholars (and ancient translations) prove they were correct.

  Even Harner admits the translation is possible. (though for theological reasons says its not "justifiable")

  Metzger once said it was a "frightful mistranslation"

  well no its not when you look at the paralels in the very same book. even later correcting himself saying it is possible, but from the context is the least likely..

  (Tho the context is debatable, Metzgar is honest the second time round)

  Edgar J Goodspeed and James Moffat both rendered it as "divine" Goodspeed explaining it functions as an adjective rather than identity (in a footnote).

  Whatever the date whether 1914, or however many years back - is besides the point anyhow.

  "This still makes no sense, because if you believe this to be true" - I dont believe war is correct or killing one another is correct, does that mean I have to go and fight to end the war?

  nice try but it doesnt work that way

  I gurantee your a hypocrite here.I gurantee there will be something you believe is correct but not doing anything to defend - so hypocrite.

  "This knocks out the entirety of Restorationist theology. After all, who founded your "church"?" - what church?, Im of no denomination - I agree

  with Witnesses on 80% of things, the other 20% is what keeps me away.

  "Well, if Jesus is no longer a man, and the 'man Jesus' is our mediator, then what?" - considering he was raised as a spirit, but Greg Stafford can deal with you

  in that department.

  "You are talking about something else now" - Im not, but hey your far too self absorbed to see that..

  "His primary and real role was not to die for the forgiveness of our sins, but to defend Jehovah's name, justify His sovereignty, and establish His kingdom."

  - source? Id say they were all his "primary" motive in some sense, since they all relate...

  "God does His part, man does his, and the two together result in redemption. However, this view is in irreconcilable contradiction with the gospel of the sinner's salvation by grace alone." - grace alone?

  " irreconcilable contradiction" - what drug are you on?

  "Jesus here asks the Father for the disciples to "be one"" -

  1) Im using an argument I came up with, I know of no such WT argument that matches. (I know of a somewhat similar one, but disagree with it, for the very reason you mention, well part of it)

  2) My argument is essentially on the meaning of "Kathos" we all know what the neuter form of "one" means One [thing] rather than the one [person] which would be the masculine form, admittedly the feminine Im not 100% sure on, I dont think a feminine exists in koine for "one" but anyhow.

  "we would conclude that the perfection of the Heavenly Father is attainable by humans." - no we wouldn't, because Kathos doesnt mean "identically" it means "just as"

  The basis for your argument remains weak since its the same context, word for "one" (neuter) linked by "kathos". if one means

  "the Son must be honored in exactly the same way, just as the Father. " then IF John 10:30 means Jesus and his Father share identical natures + essense (and whatever else) and "kathos" is used here aswell then it means the disiples were "one" in exactly the same sense (Divine, nature etc)

  you change the meaning to "Kathos" in the 2 different scriptures.

  since it doesnt mean "exactly" but "similar" as in the "slave was treated as the master" we have a different side of the story (One you infact omit, or muddle)

  "Well, it's just that what you claim is not being said here, it is clear that in this case, it is still God "himself" who createss (even so that the Son himself is God), not through a creature-archangel."

  - explain the passive occurence in Col 1:16 then - in every other occurence, When God is mentioned creating its the active..

  " God's omnipotence does not extend to conceptual impossibilities" - How is impossible in view of the passive verb?

  You will have to prove otherwise, when God (I assume you think this means all 3 person) is mentioned "creating" the verb used is active, rather in Col 1:16 with dia followed by a genitive its passive.

  you claimed I knew nothing of linguistics, well turns out I do, and Im going to go really hard on you with linguistics, because at the end of the day, you need linguistics to understand the bible whether you like it or not.

  again

  If we change the passive clause to an active one by making the verb active and by changing the subject to an object, it becomes

  clear that Jesus is not the Creator, especially in view of the instrumental en auto. The Father is the only one who could rightly be viewed as the Creator in this context, and

  He is mentioned in verses 13, 14 and 19. Verse 19 is particularly instructive, for it, too, uses the instrumental en auto in reference to Christ, and eujdovkhsen k.t.l. refers to the

  action of the Father. Another passive verb, e[ktistai (ektistai) is used at the end of verse 16, and in an active clause has God doing the creating through and for (or ‘in[to]’) Christ.

  dig your way out of this one..

  "But how it would become clear from the context of Colossians 1:16 that Jesus is also a creature is not clear."

  - because its the lexical meaning to the word.. see BDAG + the use of the passive verb.

  "PSALM 89:27: David, who was the last born son of Jesse (cf. 1 Samuel 16:11), is called “first-born.”

  JEREMIAH 31:9: Ephraim, who was born after Manasseh (cf. Genesis 41:51-52), is called “first-born.”

  EXODUS 4:22: Israel is called God’s “first-born” son.

  JOB 18:13: An illness is called “the first-born of death.”"

  - answered 90% of these previously, you ignore that.

  On Job 18:13 - its an idiom for the most deadly - you can find the temporal priority bit yourself, it exists + they are all still part of their respective groups, not an exception to them

  "The burden of proof is on you" - why? you make the claim of more than one archangel to me, I asked for a scholarly source , you can do it when critisizing Furoli but cant now?

  The bible is the final authority and never uses the plural form of "archangel" but only singular (and never mentions any other archangel)

  https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/04/revelation-81-2-and-seven-angels.html

  https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/07/answering-questions-about-judaic.html

  https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=archangel

  "He could hardly speak of that, since John was not even alive at "the beginning"" -

  he could, quite easily - I can talk about my point of view of something in the distant past just as you can.. History books can do it. Your being misleading here to bolster your argument. IF we cant talk about something that happened in the past without being there, Why does the past tense exist?

  "the time began with "the beginning", there was no time "before" the beginning." - according to Constable of the NET bible that is rooted in Greek philosophy (Origin and Philo used this argument)

  not a bible teaching..

  "Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting" - yet we have other bibles rendering as "Days of Old" why? because Olam can also simply mean "no specifically stated beginning or end"
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  ( since Im a quote miner, Ill let you do your research and I will paraphrase my sources :) )

  " supposedly - you never have free time to dive into counter-arguments, you just responded really quickly" - I mean, I have a job that takes up a lot of my time (an excessive amount) and Id rather not waste my limited spare time and actaully spend time with family.

  I happen to be a "teacher" (wont tell you exactly what type) if you must know, I have a family who is heavily dependant on me, and I also like "me time" - so either get over yourself, or stop answering me you uneducated, insensitive [something i wont say].

  " What is the point of this?" - I know people who defend other religions/ things they generally are no part of.. its sticking up for what you think is right..

  "you don't understand linguistics as much as you do theology" - How would you know? you have no idea what I truly know about Greek and Hebrew + A Greek professor would disagree with you

  "you're a quote miner," - you do the same, get over yourself - whats the difference in you citing athanasious and me citing people like Wallace? none.. its citing credible sources for claims we make..

  Even staunch trinitarians on this website do it, are they also quote miners? your the only one to ever accuse anyone of this - which in my mind displays narcissitic attitude. (I know, because I dealt with a father who acted similar )

  "all use the same well-known WTS "quote collection" method..." - shall I list trinitarians that do the same? you do it aswell (well actaully you make claims without scholarly support mostly) Who doesnt cite outside sources. what credible acedemic paper doesnt, ill give you a hint none, even ones on theology do it.

  "there is no mention anywhere that heresy will dominate the Church, and that the true faith will have to be "restored" at some point." - can you back that up with actaul evidence?

  "Furuli," - has expertise in Hebrew

  "Stafford" - funny James white, Robert Bowman Jr and a whole list of others (not hard to find) would disagree

  "A frequently heard "urban legend" is also that "the Catholic Church banned the Bible"" - How disconnected from reality are you? that is not what i said.

  "Those who keep raising this accusation, have they considered that maybe the Old Testament faithful Israelites or the early Christians ALL had their own Bible?" - its scholarly confirmed that the scrolls were in limited supply, but I wont quote anything because you know Im a "Quote miner" (even though everybody under the sun does it, but you know WTS people arent allowed to do it, disgraceful, hypocritical and pathetic)

  "mediator, then either we do not have a mediator, or Jesus has not ceased to be human." - The only thing left would be of the angel class, neither God nor Human - being a spirit doesnt automatically make you God

  The "was Adam created perfect link" is nothing more than a fanciful interpretation. There are other sources online who destory that argument - but Im a quote miner, so go find it yourself.

  " It's Jesus' commandment, that the Son must be honored in exactly the same way, just as the Father. " - so they are the ones who are "one" with Jesus are exactly "one" as he and the Father are (Kathos)? So they are God?

  game, set, match, either Kathos means exactly or it means "just as" (which doesnt mean exactly the same)

  "Do the JWs honor the Son just as they honor the Father? Nope" - debatable

  "Neh 9:6, Isa 45: 12, 48:13, Job 9:2,8, Psalm 95:5-6. Will you explain each one why it doesn't mean what it does? " - check the context there will be something in all of them, but listing one

  is 45:1 is addressed to false Gods

  "Where does it state the opposite? "

  Col 1:16 (The use of the passive verb for create, not active as is in most other occurences)

  Hebrews 1:2

  John 1:3

  Where they all use dia + genitive which indicates agency (a 3rd party)

  the same passive form of an action is used in John 1:17

  Lit "edothe dia mouseos"

  edothe = aorist indicative passive

  dia - a primiary preposition denoting the channel of an act (or a third party)

  Moses (gentive) - the direction object to dia

  Who gave the law to Moses, God

  Now yes dia is used of God, However it can also indicate the "source" howver

  In any event, the sense of eis auton in this passage is not necessarily the same

  as that in Ro 11:36, since the one spoken of in Ro 11:36 is the source (ex autou

  [compare 1Co 8:6, ex autou]) of ta panta, and dia is here used in reference to the

  principal cause[...]. In Col 1:16 the "firstborn," to which

  the adverbial clause en auto refers, is shown to be someone other than the Creator, in

  view of the passive verb ejktivsqh (ektisthe). If we change the passive clause to an active

  one by making the verb active and by changing the subject to an object, it becomes

  clear that Jesus is not the Creator, especially in view of the instrumental en auto. The

  Father is the only one who could rightly be viewed as the Creator in this context, and

  He is mentioned in verses 13, 14 and 19. Verse 19 is particularly instructive, for it, too,

  uses the instrumental en auto in reference to Christ, and eujdovkhsen k.t.l. refers to the

  action of the Father. Another passive verb, e[ktistai (ektistai) is used at the end of verse 16, and in an active clause has God doing the creating through and for (or

  ‘in[to]’) Christ.

  "creation through a creature, creation by a creature is both a logical and physical impossibility. You're on the defensive from here on out." - Who said God couldnt do something (creation) through a creature if he wanted too, you limit what God could do if he wanted too..

  Im really not...

  "if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father" - actaully it does, prototokos when used always has some sort of temporal meaning

  "Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?" -

  ahh noo, incorrect again

  "The texture of OT theology leads us to

  view the relationship between Yahweh and Israel in a religious or spiritual sense by

  employing the category of election to sonship"

  Deutoronomy 7:6

  “For you are a holy people to Jehovah your God, and Jehovah your God has chosen you to become his people, his special property, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.”

  notice not only the "first" in term of temporal, but also pre-eminance

  Exodus 19:5, 6

  “Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples, for the whole earth belongs to me. 6 You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you are to say to the Israelites.””

  Amos 3:2

  “‘You alone I have known out of all the families of the earth. That is why I will call you to account for all your errors.”

  see (yes ill cite Stafford, im sure he would love to debate and crush you + I know it will piss you off):

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZWTMBDv_js&ab_channel=CWJahTube

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLkNQQq8s_g&t=916s&ab_channel=CWJahTube

  It was the first nation to be chosen by him. It has always (since the time of Moses) been the first, but it has certainly never been “pre-eminent” among the nations! And, of course, we must not change the inspired writer’s genitive noun (“of me”) in this verse to “over me” as has been done at Col. 1:15 in a few trinitarian Bibles (e.g. NIV). How ridiculous to “interpret” this so that God says: “Israel is the ‘pre-eminent one’ OVER me”! (But, of course, this is precisely what some trinitarians have done with Col. 1:15 - “the pre-eminent one over all creation”!!

  It is true that being first-born in a family was strongly connected with pre-eminence. The one born first was usually supposed to be the one to receive the birthright and pre-eminence within that family.

  notice the blessings given by Jacob at Gen. 49:3, 8-12, 22-26. The blessings given to Judah and Joseph identify them as the true "pre-eminent ones" of his sons. Reuben, the literal first-born, lost pre-eminence even though he continued to be known as the "first-born" (prototokos in the Septuagint) in the family of Jacob and the "beginning" (arkhe) of Jacob's family - Gen. 49:3, 4; 1 Chronicles 5:1-3 – RSV.

  "Acts 5:3-4.9"

  so is Abraham God aswell?

  John 8:37 “Our father is Abraham.”

  John 8:41 "We have one father, God"

  "The Son is eternally begotten," - I ask you to prove this..

  "it refers to three persons who are called Lord and God" - funny I can only find 2 not 3

  "the Holy Spirit is not the same as God's "force", since He also has power/force (Lk 4:14, Rom 15:13,19, 1 Cor 2:4) and can fill people with his power (Mic 3:8 cf. Acts 1: 8). The Bible clearly distinguishes the Holy Spirit from God's power (Zech 4,6, Lk 1,35, Acts 10,38, Rom 15:13,19, 1 Cor 2,4, 1 Thess 1,5), and above all, the Spirit is not excluded from creation because the Holy Spirit is also God" - try Edgar Foster on that one, one trinitarian already tried and failed

  - skipping over -

  "Well, that's your problem" -whos on the ropes now..

  "the fact is that neither in Judaism nor in Christianity has anyone ever believed that there is only one archangel" - you say this, but I would like you to actaully cite a scholarly source for this claim..

  " The Council of Chalcedon " - I dont consider that an authority - cite an actaul scholarly source please..

  "There was no time before the beginning, because time began then." +

  "but the "in the beginning was" means eternity" +

  "which means precisely that he is eternal"

  - Edgar J Goodspeed, James Moffat and the NET bible + most commentators on Biblehub would all disagree as what you state is not a bible teaching.. there are about 3 seperate points of view of "The beginning"

  "The beginning" is considered to be when God made the heavens and the earth, the bible never comments on time itself, or the universe for that matter.

  John 1:1 noticably omits the "Heavens"

  Hebrews 1:2 does the same

  Satan has been sinning since "the beginning"

  "He already existed "in the beginning"." - or John was talking about his point of view...

  as is common use

  Beginning should not be interpreted as anything other than a certain point in time, it doesnt say God "made the beginning"

  whenever a "beginning" it is always some point in time.

  "in the beginning was" - see above..
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  You like to omit the other side of the dont you... why dont you be 100% transparent for a change? why dont you say what both sides have claimed accurately with sources.. infact insteasd of deabting theology lets debate linguistics..

  - To be added too later-

  "As a Catholic, I " - funny catholics acknowledge that their teachings arent in the bible... read your own encyclopedia

  "the Old Testament divine name primarily associated with the First Temple cult is foreign to the theological environment of the New Testament" - Its what you claim but you havent proven it to anyone.. infact scholars have proven otherwise

  " since how would they know that exactly those 27 books make up the canon of the New Testament?" - kind of obvious, modern scholarship can figure that out.. also dont forget the catholics did that bit for us, because they are the ones who "hid the bible" for centuries

  see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_the_Bible#:~:text=From%20a%20Catholic%20point%20of,deviations%20from%20official%20Catholic%20doctrines.

  (ignore article, see sources)

  " if Jesus ceased to be man, then we no longer have a mediator." - a mediator is by definition neither side, at the time Jesus was a sinless man, neither God nor [sinful] man (everybody on earth)

  The Last Adam

  " in the New Testament in two ways:" - actaully three, according to John 10:34,35

  These Judges (or angels) were gods in their capacity they represented God and were meant to be dishing out Godly justice.

  everything called a false god in the Bible receives worship - being "a god" does not mean you are inherently automatically false

  " It cannot be used to support doctrine" - yet you used it to support your own doctrine?

  " Christ is a woman " - no but wisdom is also described with masculine words aswell (ā·mō·wn, masculine), as is the holy spirit in other places in the Hebrew OT, yet trinitarians insist its a "he" when in the OT its described as a "she" (personification is done primarily in the feminine gender, even in english personification is feamle, even tho the subject may be male or non-living)

  "However, nowhere in the New Testament did anyone apply Proverbs 8 to Jesus, nor does Solomon suggest that we should see more in the chapter than the description of wisdom. That is why, although the identification with Jesus seems like a nice parallel, it definitely lacks a strict biblical basis." -

  your very own sources would disagree:

  Justin Martyr - Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXI

  " ... that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos;"

  Tertullian - Against Praxeas, Chapter VI

  The Word of God is Also the Wisdom of God. The Going Forth of Wisdom to Create the Universe, According to the Divine Plan.

  Origen - On Principles, Book I: Chapter 2:1

  For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: “The Lord created me—the beginning of His ways, and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.” He is also styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: “who is the first-born of every creature.” The first-born, however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the Apostle Paul says that “Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

  source: https://www.biblegateway.com

  if this is just Gods wisdom, why are trinitarian bible cfing proverbs 8 with Christ..

  Prov 8:22 CR Rev 3:14

  NIV, GNT,ESV, NASB, NASB1995, NASBRE, CEV

  Prov 8:30 CR John 1:1,2

  ESV NASB

  Prov 8:30 CR John 1:3

  ESV

  NASB1995

  NASB

  Slimboy said: "Alexander and Athanasius didn’t disagree that Proverbs 8:22ff applied to Jesus but rather disputed the meaning of wisdom being “created” in this passage."

  "even though I caught you with it" - you havent at all "caught me with it" you still havent explained your way out of my question, only insisting without actaully answering the question.

  "but why would the context flatten the meaning? " - because its addressed to false Gods of the nation, nothing else is in view..

  There is nothing in the context which indicates the angels or the son or holy spirit was included in such a statement. By your logic it means God the Father did it alone, God in the NT always refers to the Father.

  "You are reinterpreting the words" - says the person spouting claims that arent even articulated in scripture.. 3 person 1 God, anyone could have easily said this at anytime but didnt wouldnt have been hard, How can you have a relationship with a God who you cant even comprehend? atleast if its only teh Father who is God then we can have some form of relationship with him... even though his thinking is beyond ours.

  " Which claims that creatures, angels contribute to the creation of the world?" - No, but it establishes even if someone claims to do something "alone" it doesnt literally mean "alone"

  "that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousios and homoiousios" - I want dictionary definitions to the words please.. not your interpretations..

  "not "Who is as God" (Russell incorrectly translated it this way)" - source?

  "since Jesus will descend with the trumpet of God, he is God." - how do you explain a prominent (trinitarian) dictionary reaching the same conclusion as the WT then? and no, trumpet of God is slightly different. nice try tho, you can come "with" a trumpet - you cant literally come "with" a voice and again ALL other occurences of this idiom mean teh voice of the subject.

  So then the question remains why is it the voice of [the] archangel, dont forget genitives can be definite even without the article the lord is coming with? why is it a lower authority than God himself? Gl explaining that one away with scripture.

  "how do you prove that the plural here means the singular?" - because no other archangel is mentioned in the bible.. I dont consider any other writings an authority as such, Ill cite them if ones claim that something wasnt viewed in one way and they actaully were.. for the rest only the scriptures are the authority.

  "As God knew, but as a human it was a new aspect. That's why he could say that he didn't know certain things," - according to you tho in some cases he switched natures at will - doesnt work.

  Im going to ignore 90% fo this as you have been very selective.

  "which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence" - yes atleast from the "beginning" they havent stopped existing since then - However it doesnt prove continuos existance before the beginning.

  "was" is modified by the clause before it.

  How are you going to prove before the beginning, our Hebrews 1:2 is already beaten.

  "the beginning of all that was created by God. " - but we know, logos was there at the creation of the heaven and the earth - still doesnt address proverbs, My whole point about John 7:42 and the imperfect "was" is that it doesnt denote eternity. As Wallace stated its the writers point of view, that quote even says what I stated it should even be viewed as aorist (not specifically John 1:1)
• 
  28

  An interesting Observation of some Bibles

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  first of all, hi, i go by blotty on this website :) i am someone who has a passion for the bible and like to get a as balanced view as i can from the trinitarian and the jw (or unitarian) side - even though i come off as leaning towards one or the other at times, in my opinion they both have merits in certain cases..if this is in the wrong section i apologise - this is just something i found interesting.iv seen online a lot that say the watchtower and tract society "invented" the link between proverbs 8:22 - 30 and jesus (the word).

  yet interestingly some "mainstream" "trinitarian- aimed" translations are cross referencing the following:source:https://www.biblegateway.comprov 8:22 cr rev 3:14niv, gnt,esv, nasb, nasb1995, nasbre, cevprov 8:30 cr john 1:1,2 esv nasbprov 8:30 cr john 1:3esvnasb1995nasb(this list is by no means complete)if this is simply wisdom, why is it referenced with jesus (or the word)?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  deleted
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  [had a powercut halfway through writing this and was limited on time so is messy]

  You say about the bible not prophesying about the “great apostasy” as you put it,yet it doesn't prophecy about an “inspired” counsel either- However according to (not limited to) the Catholic encyclopedia, encyclopedia britannica the trinity developed gradually over many centuries.

  Heres just one:

  “The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Hebrew Scriptures and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism). The second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). The high point of these conflicts was the so-called Arian controversy in the early 4th century. In his interpretation of the idea of God, Arius sought to maintain a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defense of that oneness, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father. It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons.

  The Council of Nicaea in 325 stated the crucial formula for that doctrine in its confession that the Son is “of the same substance [homoousios] as the Father,” even though it said very little about the Holy Spirit. Over the next half century, St. Athanasius defended and refined the Nicene formula, and, by the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of St. Basil of Caesarea, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since. It is accepted in all of the historic confessions of Christianity, even though the impact of the Enlightenment decreased its importance in some traditions.”

  (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trinity-Christianity)

  These christians are apologists for the council yet say the same, that it wasn't infallible. So either they are lying if so what is there motive or you are. (you are more likely to be misleading as demonstrated before and later)

  “The idea that a "great apostasy" could prevail over the true Church and that the "true teaching" could practically disappear for centuries, or even millennia, follows from the notion of the indefectibility of the Church” - yet Gods nation fell into a very long string of idolatry and the “truth” essentially disappeared - you can read that in isaiah

  "You refer to various names, but you do not mark your source precisely, exactly what it claims, in what context, and how it is related to the present discussion." - I googled a lot of my paraphrases and they appear in some form 2) the context we are debating 3) that should be extremely self evident..

  "even though I probably checked your sources much more than you checked mine anyway." - before this post you have cited very few, I check every one.

  “I can judge to what extent the former rely on scholarly materials.” - Who are you to judge? If you google any scholar I have cited you will soon realise they are more than qualified to make comments.. And what/who gives you the authority to say what's scholarly and what's not? What qualifications do you possess? You're no authority - Colwell was caught “lying” to bolster Christs deity and he is still more credible than you

  Since you can't google apparently here's a list, unlike yourself I try to make my posts as short as possible because that's what others have asked, if you can't figure out context to a discussion or how something relates…I pity you

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Barclay_(theologian)

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Moffatt

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_J._Goodspeed

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_B._Wallace

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kedar-Kopfstein

  https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/

  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMtjmoHN6DIQOHEK2HCvEBQ

  You can go back in our discussions and see where I cited these people and why- if you can write 50 paragraph essays of nothing more than fanciful interpretations you can do a simple look-back or google search for things I cite.

  + you rely on greek philosophy as pointed out by the sources I cite below and what a couple of users have said

  “ On the one hand, it claims that he is 1. Lord and God” - Lord is applied in different senses to different people, if most bibles were honest about the divine name in the Hebrew scriptures this correlation would be nullified.

  God can be applied in different senses. As has already been demonstrated.

  “So what kind of talk is it when JWs claim that the New Testament does not know anything about a "dual nature"?” - because he gave up one for another (Phil 2:7) The bible says flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit, the 2 are never intertwined even the angels who took human form did not have both natures

  “very attempt to render "harpagmos" here with "seizing" or a similar action and argue on this basis that Jesus "did not entertain the idea of usurpation to become equal with God", or as the NWT renders it: "did not even consider the idea of trying to be equal to God." is entirely fruitless.” -

  Yet we have trinitarian Edgar J Goodspeed and James Moffat 2 of the very best NT scholars to ever live according to Robert Bowman JR (& others) rendering it similarly:

  “ Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God,”

  (https://studybible.info/Goodspeed/Philippians%202:6 )

  Though he was divine by nature, he did not set store upon equality with God

  (https://studybible.info/Moffatt/Philippians%202:6 )

  I concede Rolf's expertise is in Hebrew not Greek, However that interpretation also runs the opposite to the previous clauses who express the exact opposite to the rendering you claim to be correct.

  Phil 2: 1-4 is talking about humility, verse 5 expresses the attitude of Christ as an example - to claim then that verse 6 proves Jesus is God is contrary to not only the context but the very next thought in verse 7. The word rendered emptied conveys the idea of “(a) I empty, (b) I deprive of content, make unreal.” (https://biblehub.com/greek/2758.htm )

  “so ontologically inferior to the Father regardless of his incarnation, why did he only have to "learn" obedience "in the days of his [being] flesh"?” - I can reflect this question straight back and say if Jesus has existed forever why did he need to learn it? Surely he would already have known it.

  “The fact that John 7:42 is aorist (or can be understood as such) according to someone (who?)” - go look it up

  “ but it is specifically stated based on the full text of John 1:1a ("In the beginning was...")” - those 2 in combination dont prove eternity either again, there can be 2 or 3 different perspectives referred as “in the beginning” Gen 1:1 is Moses point of view

  “ Well, 'ἦν' here hardly means that David was "created" in Bethlehem (???)” - you like to stretch what I say way out don't you.. I never said that did I? Read my claim again.. It also doesn't mean David was in Bethlehem for all eternity or existed in Bethlehem for all eternity it means he was there and then left.. Same with John 1:1 just because he was there in “The beginning” does not omit him from “coming into existence” at some other point.

  “look at Proverbs 8:23” - now you cite proverbs, does it refer to The Word or not? Make up your mind..

  “where the divine wisdom is said to be everlasting ("I was set up from eternity (olam)” - you ignore the fact that Olam can just mean no specified beginning or end

  “John should write "In the beginning the Word was created"” - not according to Proverbs 8:23,27,29 (more on that later)

  On your imperfect tense claim I found the quote I want with a very simple google search might I add, you should try it sometime:

  “Daniel B. Wallace treats of the Greek imperfect in pp 540-553 in his book Beyond the Basics and makes remarks about the imperfect in comparison to the aorist. What is pertinent to this question is that he states :

  The imperfect is often used to describe an action or state that is in progress in past time from the viewpoint of the speaker.

  I think that that statement sums up the use of John's verb in this context as John describes a state that existed at a time that was in the past according to his own point of view, as he wrote (or dictated) the words.”

  (https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/43538/imperfect-indicative-active-in-john-11-4 )

  And see:

  "The beginning that John spoke of was not really the beginning of something new at a particular time. It was rather the time before anything that has come into existence began. The Bible does not teach a timeless state either before Creation or after the consummation of all things. This was a pagan Greek philosophical concept. Origen and Plato held it, as do some modern eastern religions and some uninformed Christians, but it is not a biblical teaching."

  (Constables notes - https://netbible.org/bible/John+1)

  I can say: the light bulb was in 1879 without ever specifying it was made that year or before that year (not proper english but you get the point)

  Spanish as a language works SIMILAR to Greek “Era is the imperfect tense and Fue is the simple past tense. We use one or the other depending on what we want to convey in Spanish. The Imperfect is usually for when you want to say "he/she used to be..." or simply want to be more descriptive about the past.”

  The NABRE has this note for John 1:1: "In the beginning: also the first words of the Old Testament (Gn 1:1). Was: this verb is used three times with different meanings in this verse: existence, relationship, and predication. The Word (Greek logos): this term combines God’s dynamic, creative word (Genesis), personified preexistent Wisdom as the instrument of God’s creative activity (Proverbs), and the ultimate intelligibility of reality (Hellenistic philosophy). With God: the Greek preposition here connotes communication with another. Was God: lack of a definite article with 'God' in Greek signifies predication rather than identification."

  “The lack of distinction between lowercase and uppercase letters is important because according to this, anyone who read a New Testament manuscript in ancient times would never have thought that "THEOS" is understood in a different sense in the case of the Son than in the case of the Father.” - really what about Acts 28:6 with John 10:33? Both anarthorus accusative constructions yet all bibles render John 10 as God (definite) and Acts as “a god” ITS THE SAME CONSTRUCTION, CHOOSE! It's either indefinite in both or definite NOT BOTH.

  “Luke does not claim in Acts 28:6 that Paul was actually "a god"” - you really muck up my words don't you, can you actually quote what I said? I didn't say that..

  “The teaching of the Catholic Church about the Trinity has never changed, since the dogma cannot be changed.” - see the encyclopaedia quote above, google “changes to the trinity doctrine”

  I’ll ignore the Isaiah quotes as you quote them outside of their context as established in my previous post, which you fail to explain away, why the sentence 2 lines later doesn't matter to the context of the particular line you're citing. Ironically you quote Proverbs 8:23 as a reference to Logos’ eternity, yet fail to also mention proverbs 8:30 where the active agent is mentioned (compare: John 1:3)

  Job 9:8 - just compare the other similar statements made by countless others in the following:1 Kings 6:2; 6:14; 7:1; 8:27; 9:10; 15:23; 22:39; 2 Chron. 26:9; Ezra 5:11, etc.

  “since ἔκτισε of the LXX still not the same as ποιηθέντα” - dictionary evidence? (same for: theotes and theitotes )

  “Secondly, the Wisdom of Proverb 8:22 is not the Logos himself, it does not identify and equate with the Logos per se” - ok so you can't use proverbs to establish his eternity either then.

  “so this could not be used to support a doctrine anyway”

  The same person says:

  “look at Proverbs 8:23. It explains where the divine wisdom is said to be everlasting ("I was set up from eternity (olam), and of old before the earth was made."); and it explains the connection in which the Word - God therefore eternal”

  Hypocrite.. Make up your mind.

  “1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not at all identify the voice of Jesus with the voice of the archangel, it only reveals that the coming of Jesus will be accompanied by the word of an archangel” W.E Vines dictionary states the opposite:

  “ In 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the meaning seems to be that the voice of the Lord Jesus will be of the character of an "archangelic" shout.”

  (https://studybible.info/vines/Archangel )

  Should look up all cases of this idiom and tell Vines and Edgar how many times it means accompanied by a voice, rather than the voice of the person mentioned

  “Archangel Michael is just an angel, a "ministering spirit"” - but he is not just an angel is he? He is “the great angel”

  “Since Michael is not literally a "chief prince", but an archangel, the fact that he is "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13, LXX: “the great angel”) means that he is one of the archangels” - plural is sometimes used for things in the singular. and the bible never uses the plural.

  Hebrews 2:5 proves nothing, the thing that is meant is “every day” angels the one called “son of God” would be an exception.

  On Hebews 1:2

  NET Bible Footnote 6 (Hebrews 1:2):

  “the ages.” The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb 11:3 for the same usage.

  see the discussion on Hebrews 1:2 in Paul Ellingworth's Hebrews commentary. He insists that the word in this context refers to "the totality of the universe" and that the plural form of the word here is indistinguishable in meaning from its singular form. So, he's arguing that the sense in Heb. 1:2 is more spatial than temporal. See LSJ and BDAG.

  On Jesus being Wisdom - your very own sources would disagree:

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5172429031211008/interesting-observation-some-bibles#/6246256653893632

  https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/5172429031211008/interesting-observation-some-bibles#/6254057488908288

  Archangel

  and see here: https://archive.org/details/WilliamMillerEvidenceFromScriptureAndHistoryOfTheSecondComingOf/page/n41/mode/1up
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  On the Nicene creed being infallible

  "Some evangelical and other Christians consider the Nicene Creed helpful and to a certain extent authoritative, but not infallibly"

  "You just listed a bunch of names here, but without specifying when, where, and in what context they stated what, it's vague and imprecise." - why dont you go and look it up? why do I have to do all the work? its not hard..

  "rather than drawing conclusions from the evidence. For example, they quote the dictionary form of a certain word from a dictionary (which lists up to 8-10 different meanings), highlight the one they like in bold and underline, and then carry it around like a victory wreath saying "DO YOU SEE?" - yet you do almost exactly the same... trinitarian like to dispute the meanings to words that JWs give them - saying it cant mean that, well turns out it can.

  "the WTS apologist sites you also recommend" - there one I would consider an apologist site, I doubt you read half the information on it - Where is the 2 nature doctrine explicitly said in scripture?

  "I highly doubt that any serious New Testament Greek linguist would ever claim that there is an aorist in John 1:1a ("en archē ēn ho Logos")" - I never stated that a scholar said there was an aorist... I said that a scholar said we should understand it as aorist. just like in John 7:42 - David is not still in Bethlehem when this was written, nor was he in bethlehem for eternity before that.

  “. . .David was. . .”

  "he cannot even judge to what extent a study is an accepted consensus or not." - a proffesor I know personally would disagree, a wikipedia article on people who are self taught would also disagree..

  "yet the Watchtower has been bragging about his name for decades" - cite source, and yeah trinitarians got proven wrong lol

  "Accordingly, tinkering with initial letters is not only linguistically unfounded" -this is rubbish and BS, Mom and mom mean 2 different things lets go through this basic english idiom together shall we?

  "Proper nouns refer to a specific person, place, or thing and are always capitalized. Common nouns refer to a general concept or thing and are only capitalized at the beginning of a sentence."

  Further:

  "When terms denoting family relationships are used as proper nouns (as names), they are capitalized. However, when the terms are used as common nouns (not as names), they're not capitalized."

  so when I refer to my Mum I capitilize the word

  when I refer to mum, like talking to a child I write it in the lowercase

  So based on:

  John 8:39

  "Our Father is Abraham"

  "We have one Father God"

  Is Abraham God? if not why not?

  How many bibles tinker with the capitalisation here?

  Lets see: NIV, ESV, KJV - must I go on?

  Lets look at a (rough) paralel to John 1:1 in Acts 28:6

  is Paul a false god, an idol - nope its teh sense in which the word is used

  even Harner disagreed with the definite "God" rendering (though "a god" he also disliked) but English idoim requires an indefinite article alot of the time for qualiative force

  "most of their specific teachings (two-class salvation regime, etc.) were never professed by anyone before" - Do I need to list the changes the trinity has gone through?

  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html

  Isnt it interesting that Athanasius was an Egyption Who were well known to believe in triads of gods

  GGBTB (Daniel Wallace) on the imperfect "was"

  says: [paraphrasing] "the imperfect is often reflecting the writers point of view (The action started in the past without reflecting time period)"

  even in combination with "the beginning" it still doesnt work as already pointed out

  "The distinction between imperfect and aorist in the above examples can be seen not so much in terms of perfectivity vs. imperfectivity, as in terms of telicity vs. atelicity.[66] The aorist ἐδειπνήσαμεν (edeipnḗsamen) would mean "we finished dinner" and would be a telic verb, implying that the action was carried through to its end, whereas the imperfect ἐδειπνοῦμεν (edeipnoûmen) would mean "we began eating dinner" and would be atelic, implying that the action was started but not necessarily completed. Similarly the aorist ἔπεισα (épeisa) means "I successfully persuaded", whereas the imperfect ἔπειθον (épeithon) means "I urged" or "I attempted to persuade":[67][68]"

  https://pressbooks.pub/ancientgreek/chapter/28/

  https://www.blueletterbible.org/resources/grammars/greek/simplified-greek/greek-verbs-pt1.cfm

  (compare Acts 28:6)

  "According to them, God had no people for almost 1900 years then" - again cite your source, according to you we cant translate words with capitals and lowercase letters to distubguish senses, according to you a phrase similar to your just 2 lines later doesnt matter, according to you aianos means "time" (when dictionarys dont even give your definition for the word, and if they do cite them)

  "In Isaiah 44:24, the most important part is not "Who was with me?"," - why does this not matter? its a direct parralel to your statement and the other scriptures I cited have humans saying "i, alone did [activity]" (paraphrase)

  (are you sure its Examining the trinity trying to prove something? Theres more holes in your arguments than in swiss cheese)

  By your very same logic God was lieing here aswell, its in the same verse, just 2 lines later..

  ""the worlds", "the eras", "the ages", etc. By definition, it also includes the time, the temporality, which is also a created reality. The Council of Nicaea asserts (in Greek) that the Son begot from the Father before all αἰώνs (plural)" -

  (from my original post)

  "Here τοὺς αἰῶνας is equivalent to "the worlds," as in the A.V. For though the primary meaning of αἰών has reference to time - limited in periods, or unlimited in eternity - it is used to denote also the whole system of things called into being by the Creator in time and through which alone we are able to conceive time. "

  "Ἁιών transliterated eon, is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself."

  "It is sometimes translated world; world representing a period or a series of periods of time. See Matthew 12:32; Matthew 13:40, Matthew 13:49; Luke 1:70; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 1:21. Similarly οἱ αἰῶνες the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 11:3."

  "The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to ἀεί is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, ἀεί does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (ἀεί) liars (Titus 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 6:10; Hebrews 3:10; 1 Peter 3:15. Ἁεί means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. "The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum.""

  "The adjective αἰώνιος in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, ἀΐ̀διος, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jde 1:6."

  your claim about teh double accusative is wrong also as aalot of the time we ahve a double accusative in creation clauses (see Net Bible footnote for Prov 8:22)

  "The dual nature of Jesus " - proof in the bible?

  "1 Thessalonians 4:16 speak generally, without an article, "en phōnē archangelou" (with voice of (an) archangel), and does not call Jesus' voice the voice of the archangel at all." - a genitive can be definite even without the article.. Dan 10:13 on Biblehub go look it up, youll soon see why it says that.

  "1) The Resurrection: ONLY ONE VOICE CAN COMMAND THE DEAD TO RISE

  a) There is only ONE VOICE that can raise the dead in the coming

  resurrection. This authority has been given to the Christ by

  his Father. (John 5:25-28).

  b) It is the VOICE of an ARCHANGEL that raises the dead during

  the unique SINGULAR act of the resurrection at the time of

  the end. (1Th 4:16; cf Da 12:2 ).

  c) Since the archangel shares the unique characteristic that only

  Christ posesses, the authority to raise the dead with his voice,

  Christ is an archangel.

  Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words -- Topic:

  Archangel says regarding the character of the Lord Jesus' voice

  "In 1 Thess. 4:16 the meaning seems to be that the voice of the

  Lord Jesus will be of the character of an 'archangelic' shout."

  (https://studybible.info/vines/Archangel)

  1Th 4:16 NWT

  "because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a

  commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's

  trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will

  rise first."

  Vines assigns the voice of Jesus with the character of

  the archangel, because the grammar demands it.

  Thayers calls the voice that raises the dead at John 5:28 "the

  Resurrection-Cry" and "Christ's voice that raises the dead" at

  1Th 4:16 as "an awakening shout". The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice'

  is literally 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU', in the oblique dative case.

  In all other occurences of this idiom in the Greek New Testament it

  describes the voice of the subject in the clause."

  (Edgar Foster - https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/01/michael-archangel-as-christ.html )
  (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies - you should be careful before you call people an apologist, for a ph.d in both of these some Greek is required, He has studied German, Latin and Greek and I believe teaches at a university)

  yeah he is on of "the cheif princes" not archangels

  "once it claims that even they were created by the Son." - read original post.. stop babbling and actaully challange what I have written in the original post

  I notice when I ask for sources you fail to provide to back up your claims,
• 
  66

  "outside of time" argument

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  this is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.the word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question hebrews 1:2 .

  (https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)for starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.note: i am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, i am saying this scripture some of the claims i dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.. bill mounce defines the word as:pr.

  a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, heb.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  "they are not scholars, nor linguists, but WTS apologists" -

  listing the ones that I have cited to you so far (in total, not in just this conversation):

  Barclay, Robertson, Goodspeed, Moffat & Wallace are not apologists but well respected scholars (Wallace even has a specific qualification in koine Greek)

  Greg stafford is not a WT apologist at all, but has good knowledge in Hebrew and Greek (has taken a class in both)

  Benjamin Kedar kopfstein is a Hebrew proffesor at a university (has qualifications in Hebrew and has made favorable comments on the NWT OT, which he never made a statement about Prov, infact saying the opposite to you)

  Beduhn (Who will be cited later) may not have specific qualifications in Greek, but teaches it in a university as his book says and is a historian

  Edgar Foster is a scholar, and has qualifications (and a JW) check for yourself

  Rolf (not yet cited) is a Hebrew prof

  Examining the trinity (cites numerous scholars) in context - check for yourself (WT has never cited a scholar out of context as such, but has been misleading in alot of cases yes, granted)

  Lesriv spencer: see above ^ (I dont know his qualifications)

  not listing all the commentaries on Biblehub, non are JW, pretty sure some have qualifications though, you can look if interested, I have before but am not gonna do it again rn
  

  and by saying what you said you disrespect ones who are self taught, like myself who are quite well versed in the languages (Greek is more my expertise, I personally find Hebrew difficult in some areas)

  What are your qualifications? (with proof)

  What were the nicene creeds qualifications?

  Ill admit I have none, Im currently taking a class in koine Greek and for the rest am self taught..

  Ill deal with this first argument tmr (probably, have other issues to attend, rather than idoits on teh internet), Its 11pm (Where I am) as Im writing this (last thing I wrote) and I have an early start

  "even though in the time of the apostles there was no distinction between lowercase and uppercase letters" - the distinction in letters to distuinguish the sense in which the word is used. I do it commonly in my own writings tho not proper english when I refer to my actaul mother I capitlise the word but when I mean the catergory or classification I use lowercase - not misleading, common english idiom

  "the burden of proof is on you, thus, being founded only in 1879" -

  yet you call JWs arians... who existed long before 1879? nice way to avoidan easy scriptural reference which takes only 2 minutes

  "Consequently, according to the Scriptures, only a Church that has continuously and visibly existed since the time of the apostles, with historical continuity, can be true." - yet what you claim wasnt fully established till atleast the 3rd (maybe 4th)

  " If you claim that this strict terminological difference means nothing" - I dont actaully, teh significant difference is I (and Witnesses) claim that Jesus was the ONLY thing created directly by YHWH and teh rest was done via agency

  "(=by/through Him) in John 1:3, but also with "en" (=in Him) in Colossians 1:16" - so agency & the "in him" is easily explained but I will get to that later

  " The New Testament verses used by Jehovah's Witnesses to allegedly predict the alleged "great apostasy" do not claim that those specific false teachers will completely take over the Church to the extent that they will completely erase the "original" teaching without anyone noticing" - think you stretch what they have claimed a little too far.. can you cite your sources for this claim. (with surrounding context, Im asking for a long post now and link)

  "if the Holy Scriptures say "THEOS" without the article ("HO", "the"), it actually means only a demigod, and only the form provided with the article ("HO THEOS") means full deity. " - they never claimed such a thing - you misunderstand what you quote, its a flexible principle - there are many places in teh bible where "theos" (or the other cases) do not have the article but have some other idication that it is definite including but not limited to, dative, genitive, prepositional or demonstrative (constructions) - the sense of the word should also be considered as in "Father" in John 8

  " But there is no temporality, temporal succession in God...it is impossible that there was a time when he did not possess, lacked something." - precisicly my point, the very verb implies this meaning, therefore if you are 100% honest and this symbollically refers to the son - then there was a time he didnt exist or atleast wasnt with God.

  "The context does not flatten the meaning of what Isaiah 44:24 states" - thats what you would like to think- in reality it does as the son and the angels are not in the context of the discussion, yet those scriptures I cited use a similar vein.

  Just 2 lines down in Isaiah 44:24

  “Who was with me?”

  A very similar statement to the one you claim "the context does not flatten the statement" - well actually yes it does.. it restricts it to the subjects and God, the angels and the son are not in "sight"

  Who was with God? The angels

  Hebrews 3:4 so God made the Godhead?

  " Association and typology is not identification" - Jesus identifies himself as the wisdom of God - you cant cherry pick outside texts from the bible and only use bits of them, you either believe Jesus is Wisdom in Proverbs 8 or you dont. no one else on here does.

  I understand you might consider some cherry picking... however they omit whats not important, however you ask any to address those bits Im sure they would be more than happy too.

  Hebrews 1:10 is slightly different, if it identifies Jesus as YHWH then it also identifies him as Solomon

  "No one said that they invented it" - Trevor R Allin & others claimed this exact thing.. so you lie

  "while "He caused/made me to be the beginning/principle" is grammatically more plausible with the double accusative construction." - really? check Biblehub and commentaries, alot would disagree.

  "God should not be understood with concepts taken from the created world and with logic" - yet your using using logic... "by logic of this" in the previous paragraph

  " I know this WTS argument in connection with John 10:30-36" - In John I say human judges were called gods... Im talking about other texts which I never specified - so you jump to conlcusions

  "In what sense namely then?" - he was a divine being, they werent as plainly stated in other places in scripture..

  "but the Council of Nicaea was." - really? not sure about that one, even the WTS doesnt claim to be infallable, the bible warns against this very behaviour.

  "This term "system of things" occurs exclusively in the terminology of the Watchtower" - check Biblehub... your sadly mistaken

  "so why do you claim that you are not a member of the JW denomination?" - covering almost every possible (most common) rendering of the word, as you yourself do...

  ""how do you accept the statement of the Nicene Creed that Son "was begotten from the Father, before all αἰώνs"? - like the commentaries on Bible hub say... go read (all of) them (all disagree with the "time" argument)

  "Yet where does the Scripture call Jesus an archangel? The term "other" that I highlighted in bold is not in Hebrews 1" -
  
  for

  0.1) I refer you to my previous answer for Hebrews 1:5

  1) The word other doesnt occur because an archangel is not an angel per-say, but a higher class of angels

  2) allos is often ommitted where we would add "other"

  Romans 9:5 is a highly debated text and the NET would actaully disagree, the immediate person referenced is not always the direct antecedent. (so would many others + many texts in the bible)

  you omit part of Col 2:9 - selective quoting, "God was pleased"

  "The difference between Jesus and Michael... Jude's letter establishes the truth that Satan has greater authority than Michael. The apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan ..., but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him..." (ellipsis added for sake of simplicity) - one plain statement, at one point Jesus didnt have authority - at another he did. Thers your answer, you can find teh rest yourself ;)

  yet based on trinitarian logic, the similaritys between Jesus and Michel are huge - So I would say they are the same being - I can list the parralels, I can use your logic against you aswell.

  1 thess 4:16 - should look up the idiom used in this scripture

  "God is infinitely perfect. But what changes either gains or loses perfection; therefore, it is not the most perfect" - are you sure? I dont think thats 100% correct