Blotty

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 189 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Blotty

• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  in Matt 28:17 it says (roughly) "some doubted" - How can you doubt when you worship something? that's an oxymoron

  Do you fact check anything before you post? How anyone takes you seriously I will never understand.
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  AQWSED:
  
  You should really research this stuff before you open your mouth and call out the NWT on "mistranslations" Ever checked Youngs Translation? and how he renders the 2 verses?
  
  How does Goodspeed's Bible render Matt 4:10??
  
  any competent person could look it up and go "oh Goodspeed does the exact same thing"
  How is Goodspeed not wrong, but the NWT is? When they translate the verse in a similar fashion - Could it be more YOUR theological motivation driving that rather than objective scholarship?
  
  you said proskenyo has a range, yeah it does - The full extent goes to the Father NO ONE else.

  "If proskyneō were intended to mean mere homage for Jesus, it would contradict the shared divine worship described here." - except in 1 Chronicles, where the exact same construction occurs - yet I would venture to guess you would claim it means different - you CANNOT have it both ways, choose..

  "While "worship" in older English usage could include respect or homage, the modern understanding aligns more closely with the biblical context when referring to Jesus. " - When were these Bibles translated? again you have NOT done your research

  "Reducing proskyneō to mere "obeisance" in references to Jesus undermines the consistent NT witness to His divine identity." - this is made up BS of your own creation...

  
  What's a synonym to the word "obeisance"?:

  https://www.google.com/search?q=obeisance&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  oh look "Worship" "homage" "Veneration" & "honor" - this literally proves you don't even do simple google searches to research any point you make.. Why would I EVER believe anything you say to me? Do you ever get tried of being wrong?
  
  You seem to ignore Hebrews 1:6 is a reapplication - Why? because actaul digging might conflict with your belief? well yes it would. Iv done the digging for you
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  maybe people should consider how Edgar J Goodspeed (a trinitarian) renders Hebrews 1:6 -https://studybible.info/Goodspeed/Hebrews%201:6

  Robert M Bowman jr (a source AQWSED has used in multiple posts) said Goodspeed was "one of the greatest scholars in American history."
  Ironically even tho Bowman calls Goodspeed this, he later overlooks Goodspeeds translation of a verse that is IDENTICAL to the NWTs and called it "wrong".

  So unless AQ wants to argue with not only a trinitarian, but a well respected American scholar, they might want to retract their statement..

  Also AQ try a dictionary from the time KJV was translated and look at the meaning for the word "worship" - you are selectively citing to suit YOUR theological position...

  + The angels are TOLD to "worship" Christ, something that WOULD NOT constitute idolotry outside the mosaic law. This is a typical reapplication that could mean something slightly different
  Prove me wrong AQ - yes PROVE with sources
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  One explicit statement in one verse that the trinity exists would make me believe the trinity.

  (or God himself says he is, When Christ returns - whenever that will be, If God said he was made up of three persons, Ill eat my shoe)
  
  The explicit statement must be confirmed to be original and must include that God is made up of three persons, and these three persons are a single God.
  
  Once any trinitarian can cite what they expect from the Jehovah's Witnesses on multitple topics - then ill believe the trinity, until then, forget it!
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  "Even if et deum were a later addition, it would represent an isolated case, not evidence of widespread manipulation. " - its still manipulation none the less... you cant get around this

  "but these are limited to certain instances where people deliberately altered his works. This cannot be generalized to claim systematic corruption across all early Christian texts. " - so you admit tampering with Origens works occurred? because if it happened with Origens what stops them doing it to others? How many people called out this motivation? 2 of how many?

  -------------------------------------------------

  "which scholar claimed that John 20:28 means precisely that "Oh my God, this is Michael the Archangel, who will come invisibly in 1914 to appoint Russell!" Until you find this, explain to me what the word αὐτῷ means in this verse." -

  ok im going to assume this is a joke because we both know what I meant... its not hard to figure out..

  look up scholarly articles on thsi subject and you will see how many DENY it affirms anything.

  Rahner for one...

  The pronoun is easy to explain... its kind of required.

  and when did I say it meant "Oh my God"? I didn't, its just interesting its an address not in the vocative form - But all other occurences in the NT Christ is addressed as "kuriee" this being the ONLY exception

  see also Rev 7:14 - Where an angel is addressed as "Kuree"

  But it is interesting to note that alot of bibles render it as an explanation or doxology rather than a direct address. (Biblehub is the source)

  "The problem is that you think of "the scholars" as some universal infallible magisterium who collectively establish The Truth." - I see them as far more reasonable and evidence based than you... you are NOT evidence based at all.. theologically biased and self serving is how I would describe you or atleast is how you come off to me. Your right, everyone else is wrong (1. not true 2. makes you look like a know it all - someone I dont particularly like), what Origen says is NEVER what he meant according to you... why should I beleive you? over many others who know more than you?

  Wallace and Robertson are both ones to be "argumentive citers" they will cite examples if they think they can get away with it... I may even email Wallace myself and ask him what he thinks (citing your citations of him to see if he agrees with your portrayal aswell - Which I know is not 100% accurate, I own and have read GGBTB cover to cover)

  "The absence of a need to consider alternatives like δεσπότης or θεῖος stems from their unsuitability to convey the same theological weight."- so why does 2 dictionaries I have checked list "δεσπότης " as a synonym to Kurios? check biblehub

  notice in the contexts of the relationship specified the word is employed rather than Kurios, because it seeks to convey a certain relationship rather than a more general "authoritative" relationship, which Kurios would serve the purpose of.

  "δεσπότης does not carry this association." - Kurious is more a general term. the other is restricted in its usage hence not used, thats your explanation for one.

  again a simple google search will explain the others

  "Any distinction between the terms must be contextualized rather than assumed to reflect a lower status for Christ." - I look at word usage as that word usage - I dont try to fit my theological agenda around the facts, rather the other way around. That is scholarship

  So what does Origen mean when he says the angels are divine? does he mean lower status?

  Or "God- by participation"? does he mean lower status? I think he means something else.

  ""it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." " - to say these are not a big deal is undercutting the divine authority Moses had.. and goes against as you would put it "common consensus"

  "The rendering "a god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity" - if I was a trinitarian I would interpret this as "a divine Person"

  as is done in other places.
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  AQWSED:
  
  I will ignore most of your statement due to not only the resistiveness of such statements (which is actually rather annoying, I'm not a sheep, I don't have a memory that lasts 30 seconds) and the scholarly research that has gone into passages like John 20:28 which you for some reason are not citing. (specifically the linguistical scholarship on said passage... you are wrong to cite this passage as it actually proves nothing)

  as to my main response:

  literally a GOOGLE search will tell you otherwise..
  
  you have ignored 90% of my statement.

  "Scholars like Wallace and Robertson have indeed addressed these issues." - and the issue of the other words you claim they would have used? I don't think either of these ever make this argument (because it is invalid)

  "You asks for citations of these terms' usage but provide no counterexamples from the LXX or NT that contradict my argument."

  - 1. Asks? is this a typo or are you being serious?

  - 2. I said "what is the earliest use of these words? and are they used in the NT at all (or lxx)?" this does not mean what you said... are they used? if they are not used in the NT, we have a situation similar to "First-created" where in Pauls time it was neither in common use and another term covered its meaning. (There are other not so famous examples) So Paul would have no need to use it if the term was covered by another.

  3. " but provide no counterexamples from the LXX or NT that contradict my argument."

  What this then?
  "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."

  I provided no counter examples? I literally linked just one of my many examples - the rest is one google search away.

  Never had a proper answer from you:

  please define what you mean by: "Christ's full divinity" specifically the word "divinity"

  is this a synonym to deity? (in your usage) because to me and a lot of the population they don't mean the same thing. (including the church fathers usage in alot of cases)

  again the use of this word by you seems to be different to the majority of the population.

  if you wouldn't mind include citations of Bible passages where these 2 are distinguished or used synonymously.

  Jehovah's witnesses claim Jesus was "fully divine" before he came to earth. ("fully" = NOT half divine, half sheep as an example)

  I can cite plenty of texts to back this up.
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  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?
• 
  408

  Is Jesus the Creator?

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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 in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  that'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..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  Mr quote mining accuser has quote mined himself...
  
  full context: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1998766

  and 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