Posts by Blotty

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

aqwsed12345

are you capable of reading? I asked for scholarly contributions not theologically motivated rubbish..

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

Question for trinitarians: in what sense could the Father be considered "begotten"? If the Logos was begotten, and if this does not make him "less eternal" than the Father, then what is the difference? What event took place that constituted the Logos "begotten," and not the Father?

21

What does this even mean?

by Blotty in

"the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

Blotty

"The Son is born of the Father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense. The Son is derived from the Father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of His essence. So, the birth of the Son is an intellectual activity of God."

What does this even mean?

sounds like pure garbage to me

Where is this defined in the bible?

if the bible writers thought this was a thing they could have defined it (come up with as many excuses as you like)

Can this be put in simpler terms (by someone who is not the original writer)?

harder question: How early can this language be traced back too? 2nd century?

(scholarly contributions appreciated, rather than theologically motivated garbage)

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

This statement is false. considering no actual scholars cite this argument and is nothing more than a fanciful interpretation on the text.

since no actaul scripture is cited (if even in the bible) by either Clarke or the other quote - the actual argument is questionable at best, and still would not prove anything.

and now you say "God" refers to just the "The Father"... make up your mind.

"To expose the error of this interpretation" - All of them were "first" in something... and part of their groups not an exeption

though preeminent they were still part of their [parents] children (group) or in David's case, kings it sets tem above the rest yes, but not an exception to the rest.

- sidenote: this is also hypocritical to point out as upon further research the writer of ["Firstborn of the world"] seems to be relying on Jewish mysticism, yet this same person [original poster] has no problem pointing out ones the WT use for being spiritualist etc

Not to mention this writing for "Firstborn of the world" is so far removed from the original NT writings by approx 150 years (at minimuim) that the meaning to the word "Firstborn" in Greek and Hebrew had most certainly changed by that time

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

smiddy3

(I may well be interpreting your comment wrong)

idm if its actually constructive - but our "friend"* fails to realise that most like to be descent human beings here, and cite actual authority's on subjects (not other religious counsels that only one denomination considers an authority)

Its theologically motivated BS that I have a problem with, where the initial post was meant to be a scholarly discussion on the subject at hand - which was then hijacked by someone who ignores "authoritys" in scholarship and goes off things that are still debated in scholarship even today as fact. I would have no problem if they provided actual evidence to support their claims and also were not hypocrites in some departments - but the reality is they are.

You are welcome to say "that's just your opinion" sure ok I can take that, However I would hope (unlike they) would consider an alternative point of view and look at facts to what they are claiming about only one denomination (keep in mind)

* while I have nothing against them personally (except being excessively rude and insensitive at one point) their motives have been revealed recently as to why they post - They are not doing it to be constructive or fair, the posts are theologically motivated with no actual sources cited (Ones that are on JW content are actually very misleading and some downright malicious)
This person claims to be catholic (I cant talk, I don't claim to be anything) but I thought Christians were supposed to be nice even to ones they don't like, did Jesus say go and blast and slander apostates? nope he said the exact opposite.

Jesus went by reason and common sense (of that time) I'm stuffed if I can find it now - but recently I found a quote from Goodspeed who said Jesus was (paraphrasing) One of the most influential people to ever live. I agree with him, however those influences haven't worn off on this person - instead this would be more likely what Jesus described as (paraphrase): "the spirit of this world"

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

PetrW

Finally some [actaully] good scholarship, thank you! I will have a look at your references and get back to you.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

Blotty

What a stupid misleading uneducated article... seriously get out of my threads

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

Blotty

"For example, Isaiah 9:6 also calls Jesus Father. In this sense, "Father" is not necessarily a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God."

- Isaiah 9:6 should not be taken as meaning something to do with "God" its a messianic prophecy, the messiah was never thought to be God himself, that hadn't even crossed Isaiah's mind

That's a trinitarian interpretation of the text written - They mean Father is a synonym for God the Father (i.e John 1:1 B - by "God" John means God the Father as evidenced later)

an NET footnote states:
This title must not be taken in an anachronistic Trinitarian sense. (To do so would be theologically problematic, for the “Son” is the messianic king and is distinct in his person from God the “Father.”)... in its original context the title pictures the king as the protector of his people. For a similar use of “father” see Isa 22:21 and Job 29:16. This figurative, idiomatic use of “father” is not limited to the Bible. In a Phoenician inscription (ca. 850-800 b.c.) the ruler Kilamuwa declares: “To some I was a father, to others I was a mother.” In another inscription (ca. 800 b.c.) the ruler Azitawadda boasts that the god Baal made him “a father and a mother” to his people. (See ANET 499-500.) The use of “everlasting” might suggest the deity of the king (as the one who has total control over eternity), but Isaiah and his audience may have understood the term as royal hyperbole emphasizing the king’s long reign or enduring dynasty (for examples of such hyperbolic language used of the Davidic king, see 1 Kgs 1:31; Pss 21:4-6; 61:6-7; 72:5, 17). The New Testament indicates that the hyperbolic language (as in the case of the title “Mighty God”) is literally realized in the ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy, for Jesus will rule eternally.

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

na28: ὧν οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν.. na28 transliterated: hō̃n hoi patéres kaì ex hō̃n ho khristòs tò katà sárka, ho ṑn epì pántōn theòs eulogētòs eis toùs aiō̃nas, amḗn.. kit: .

nwt: to them the forefathers belong, and from them the christ descended according to the flesh.

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

Blotty

Seabreeze:

The list is interested - I'm wary of English translations of what early church fathers said, as trinitarians have (maybe not intentionally) mistranslated many verses with inconsistent translation practises

compare John 10:33 & Acts 28:6 then look at how John uses anarthrous "theon" in his writings - while other bibles do similar one cannot be expected to translate the same word the same way every time - However here there is no reason to translate them differently except for theological reasons as multiple scholars admit. If John had meant "God" and not "a god" according to his own writing style he would have been obligated to use the article (John 1:18 is an exception, but has a perfectly legit reason)

compare [strict] usage of arkhe and arkhon

Romans 9:5 can hardly be used to prove "doctrine" as its a hotly debated text (recognize the logic?).

For your information the Reasoning Book says:

"The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “Rom. 9:5 is disputed. . . . It would be easy, and linguistically perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, ‘Christ who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for the word theos has no article. . . . The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a doxology directed to God.”—(Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1976), translated from German, Vol. 2, p. 80."

Once again though you have presented a theologically biased analysis and only told one side of the story - There are other sides.

you start off with "As regards Christ's human nature" - already I'm sceptical,

1) nowhere is the two nature doctrine stated

2) its stated Jesus stopped being "human" after his death

Where are the scholarly citations to support your point?

Edgar J Goodspeed and James Moffatt rendered it honestly (both trinitarian) where it could be taken either way instead of one in particular (cant accuse me of quote mining xD):

https://studybible.info/Goodspeed/Romans%209:5

https://studybible.info/Moffatt/Romans%209:5

Why did you not include these? your motives have been revealed.

11

John 5:27 and Harners thesis

by Blotty in

conclusion to harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/h7.jpg.

in 1973 a scholar by the name of philip b harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.. in my view harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "god" rendering in john 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the net have paraphrased (to my knowledge).

one he didn't cover in his thesis was john 5:27 i would say this "authoratative" why?

Blotty

Slim: yes I have - I like the thesis alot - could I get a source for the author being a JW?

aqwesd - you have contributed nothing other than an opinion and things scholars disagree with - they don't employ the word for demi-god as the meaning associated with that is not what is meant + spreading misinformation on more than one subject- again please get out of my threads and let others have s ay with scholarly contributions and not theologically driven essays