Do a simple google search on AQWED's word list - this is misleading and only made to suit an agenda rather than be a substantial question - think about it, if this was a valid point why did smart scholars like Daniel Wallace, A.T Robertson (both of who, for the most part you DO NOT argue with on Greek grammar - along with Goodspeed and Moffatt are considered authorities) not raise this question previously? simple their is something that invalidates every single example.. Which AQWSED does not disclose, when a simple google search reveals it, why?
Blotty
JoinedPosts by Blotty
-
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
-
-
-
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
-
-
Blotty
Too address the questions of why were theos and Kurious used of Christ if the apostles didn't want to call him God..
Simple use a braincell... none of the other exhert the force needed or meaning that the writers intended...
Neither JW's nor anyone here claims Jesus is a demi-God (Half divine half something else) something not really known to NT writers and certainly not something they would express, because this would imply a competing God..the adjectival force would essentially be what "theos" is in John 1:1c - essentially turning it into an adjective (according to Goodspeed and Daniel Wallace)
what is the earliest use of these words? and are they used in the NT at all (or lxx)?
citations please.see Mounce for uses of the word: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/despotes - Where it is used of both Christ and God by my understanding.
not sure why you are being wilfully ignorant on these cases.. but your certainly not what you claimed to me before.
-
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
-
-
Blotty
I will also add: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/kbe/b/birthdays.html
read to the bottom
-
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
-
-
Blotty
Mr quote mining accuser has quote mined himself...
full context: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1998766and it should also be noted I do know a family of Jehovah's witnesses who do somewhat celebrate Birthdays.
personally Id rather not CELEBRATE anything derived from pagan rituals - wedding rings do not count... I avoid almost every celebration for that reason and commercialism... but that's my choice.. some theologically motivated catholic troll isn't going to change my mind.
Christmas is now just too hard... I know many non-JW who also agree with me
Week names... use a braincell - what am I supposed to do? its a day of the week, I do not celebrate it I do not worship the god behind it...
footnote: I'm not "religious" at all, I do what I deem is right - even if I was, people like AQWSED have put me off religion for life - I would hate to assosiate with any group that deems what alot of relgious people do online as acceptable and this includes the Jehovahs Witnesses as people
-
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
-
-
Blotty
For other peoples sanity Do your own research on this statement, I did one google search that this person just omits entirely from their statement to suit their ideas.
"Many practices, such as wedding rings or using calendars, have historical ties to pagan cultures" - AQWSED
HOWEVER what this person OMITS to mention is Birthdays and Christmas (somewhat) - have origins in pagan worship whereas these do not..
I plan to do a quick reference search on the JW website to see if when they mention "pagan customs" it is a context of worship (why this is not mentioned in the response to me, I am unsure - I assume theological motivation)
and this person also omits the section in Origen's statement about "righteousness"
-
408
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
-
-
Blotty
regarding Birthdays: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/94090/why-did-origen-oppose-birthdays-was-this-a-jewish-belief
While I DO NOT agree with EVERYTHING in this thread (The linked one) I'm more inclined to believe Origen - over alot of scholars.
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
Blotty
This whole response proves you did not read a thing I wrote and did your usual.. try again
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
Blotty
"you have become fixated on attacking my character. The personal insults and attempts to undermine my credibility reflect more attention on me than on the actual discussion at hand." - simply put: too me, you have NO credibility..
I think you are a nice person (generally)
But are like a 4 yr old when it comes to actaul adult debates
basically what Im saying is you are incompetent at actaully debating without having an agenda.
you cite mainstream scholarship for support ONLY when it suits - but ignore or omit it when it doesnt
unlike others on here, Who will still cite it no matter what.
"If you have specific examples of inaccuracies in my citations or evidence to support your accusations, I encourage you to provide them directly and let’s examine them together." - I have cited three alerady, this proves you do not read..
"If you’d like a translation verified by a third party, I’m open to discussing it with another reputable source." - verify with a thirdd party, your tranlsation of that dictionary please.
" Dismissing my openness to source requests without citing specific instances where sources were withheld detracts from the focus on the argument itself." - alright in my next post a link will be at the top for this
"Regarding the issue of nomina sacra in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, you claim that I omitted details about the singular versus plural forms. This does not equate to “lying” about the nomina sacra"
- So why did you say [quoted verbatum] "an interesting difference" and you go on about nomina sacra proving that Jesus is God - omitting to mention one set( in 8:5) is plural and is NEVER written as nomina sacra.
omitting information you likely know is a form of lieing (or atleast not being 100% honest)
(again I will link a source in my next post)
"However, dismissing my translated portion without engaging its actual content avoids addressing the argument itself." - when did I dismiss your translation?
yours even says "Arkhe" should be understood as "Firstfruits" - negating the first-cause implication.
"If you’d prefer, I can provide the title and page number of the non-English source for transparency." - I have it, admittedly you did end up providing it. And have translated it myself.
"Your response seems to be fueled by frustration, leading to personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations rather than engagement with the primary arguments. " - note how I type in MY started therads
I am naturally blunt in text - blunter with you because of your blatant disrespect for others and their requests for answers or sources (and the amount of times you have had to be CORRECTED on things, you should have mentioned to start) to me warrents what I have said, others may disagree - But with you, and others like you (theologically motivated ones who purposefully omit infomration to suit an agenda) I am much harsher and will call any ommision of information into queston.
Am I right for this treatment? probably not
Am I subject to a certain relgious point of view? No - So I cant be held to account on those grounds.
Do I feel justiied in being harsher with you? 100% its the only way to get actaul answers and not rubbish.
you recently said:
"I would like to ask you to avoid copying whole Bible chapters in the future, especially from the NWT, I can find it too."
How many people have asked you not to make such long posts? I can count atleast 6
When you are ready for ACTAUL dislouge, instead of dominating conversations with ONLY your theology - send me a message on here.
" archē often signifies origin or foundational principle (see John 1:1, "In the beginning," En archē)." - this is a Dative construction tho - not genitive so is not a grammatical paralel and not relevant to the discussion of gentives
No person on here does this ever,
(cites a nominative construction for an accusative for example)
I am ware at one point the church fathers did, however this is WRONG and was actaully a highly misleading argument - the point from my recollection was on the article.
"Scholars have debated this translation choice, and some argue that qanah in Proverbs 8:22 could imply “possess” or “acquire” rather than “create.”" - yes, but it never implies they always had it, every instance means they got something they did not have in the past.
8:23's use of "aion" is clarified by "The beginning" as in the beginning of created things. refering to how the Targum interprets Gen 1:1 with Proverbs 8
Wisdom claims to have existed before then, How long? its never stated.
note Origen also seems to understand the world to be "eternally begotten" in some sense.
Note the focus of Gen 1 as a while is the creation of earth and things on it. The author is "not interested" in the creation of heaven or anything before the start of the earths creation - you will notice in alot of the Bible authors focus on ONE element ommiting anything else that is not relevant to their cause.
(But also not omitting in a misleading manner ether, there is a difference)
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
Blotty
Duran
you are aware "Soul" can mean person right? even in english we use the idoim "poor soul"
no The NWT does not mistranslate: The NIV translates "soul" as "being" as one example
-
171
Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine
by slimboyfat inin an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.
this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.
the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.
-
-
Blotty
"I clearly live rent free in your head, maybe you should deal less with my person and much more with the content of what I have to say for its merit." - I have no clue what this even means... if it means I think about you all the time (my best guess) - not at all, your the easiest person to forget about - I have students, family and close friends on my mind.. you in my head is a waste of my energy.
again Im assuming it means this (I haven't googled it, and cant be bothered).. if I'm wrong please correct me.
I'm more annoyed EVERY TIME I come on you make such stupid, obviously theologically motivated arguments and annoy a lot of people here and else where - seriously, go and get a life.. if you try to hide this.. you don't do a very good job."But if you're so insistent, feel free to check it out on page 110 (or 64), you won't get very far without my translation." - really wont I? you under estimate me - a person you only know online and have never met.. your assuming I wont get far - pathetic.
"Suggesting that I “made up” these sources is a baseless attack and avoids addressing the actual content and linguistic evidence presented. " - you made up other crap before... I have plenty of evidence to prove it.. hence I dont believe a word you say (type... write? whatever you get the point)
"This practice is standard, especially if a source’s language poses a barrier to comprehension." - this is one of your hilariously wrong claims - I have plenty of books that cite books in French and German both of which I cant read
(well German slightly, because I can understand Dutch to some extent, but this is besides my point)
academic articles cite ALL of their sources! ask any reputable scholar... or go to the academic Bible subreddit and ask there... you will very soon be proven wrong.
While reddit is not the best source of information (actaully its Quora level of bad) there is certain subreddits that REQUIRE you to cite your sources, no matter the language.
"and translations are vetted by established experts in the field. Furthermore, I am open to providing additional citations upon request" - was your translation peer reviewed? if so can you provide evidence of this, and like you said to me which applies equally to you - your sources are NOT majority opinion and not the only possible emaning..
That second part is funny - shall I document how many times sources were asked for by me and others and you never provided - infact this calls to mind when I requested a source and you said I reminded you of a 2+2 meme...
so your openness to providing sources is yet another lie, because you also accused people of quote mining (including a scholar) who did provide sources for their claims... ones you could easily go and check the context of..
"Your distrust of my translation is understandable if you question its accuracy; however, this skepticism does not invalidate the arguments presented." - mainly because I don't trust you... If someone else on this website went and translated it and gave it to me (for the most part) I would trust their translations.
you are known (to me) to lie about alot of things..
Nomina sacra for starters... Where someone on here had to CORRECT your claims regarding 1 corin 8:5,6
and you ommited to mention 1 set was plural and other set was singular.. there are NO plural nomina sacra..
- will answer the rest later-