I believe most of the Watchtowers references to the different forms of "love" is itself to Barclays Book - Who also I don't think references this particular word (I may be wrong.)
Blotty
JoinedPosts by Blotty
-
14
The Greeks had a word for it, but the Watchtower didn't
by Nathan Natas ini recall as though it was only 60 years ago, sitting in the kingdom hall on those horrible chairs, learning of the four forms of love: agape, philia, storge and eros.. the watchtower never mentioned pragma.. pragma: this is a committed, compassionate love that often grows as two partners continue to cherish and care for each other.
this type of love is associated with being together for a long time.
in some cases, the passion of eros can grow into pragma over time, this forging a lasting bond.. i think i know why; the watchtower isn't into committed, compassionate, cherishing and caring, are they?.
-
-
-
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
Someone either is using A.I to "expand" their answers (The hint is in the "soul" of the message, or tather absense of one) or has WAY to much free time and should probably find something more construtive to do than "bully" Jw's online... (I know you are banned from certain blogs... for your type of behaviour)
". As for accusations of using insulting usernames or other online conduct, such claims are irrelevant to the present discussion and do not invalidate the content of my arguments. " - they hurt your credibility and you the one always talking about "respectful dialogue"
What about you? Where's yours?
So choke on this question: How are you not being a hypocrite, when in the last year - you yourself have done have engaged in disrespectful dialogue with others (notably Witnesses) But "encourage" me to be respectful to you?
Why should I?
"While Psalm 82 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 use "gods" to refer metaphorically to human judges or Satan's authority," - so you claim.. and keep claiming, yet you havent provided ay credible sources for this..
Hippolytus and Origen contridict you.
"The dismissal of Wikipedia’s utility entirely is unnecessary if the citations are accurate and well-supported by scholarly references." - What did I ask for? citation please.
Why don't you just provide them on request when i ask, like you claimed you would...
almost like your just a theologically motivated troll, here to be annoying more than anything
Maybe you should try Googling stuff occasionally, teh first page When I googled this is all filled with "Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information for academic papers"
"My point was that dismissing an argument solely because it references Wikipedia, without engaging the argument's substance, is an ad hominem tactic rather than substantive critique." - you act like a brick wall, pointless
Even if I do, you still dont concede or engage with my arguments rather just say "nope your wrong"
definition to a brickwall, its better to go and talk to one of those infact.
"The critique against rendering theos in John 1:1 as "God" rather than "a god" reflects a misunderstanding of Greek grammar" - so even on a strictly lingustical ground you say "a god" is wrong?
(who am i kidding, your theologically motivated, you cant do strict linguistics)
"John 1:3, where the Logos is identified as the Creator of "all things."" - that only says what the God he was with did through him.. not what he hinself initiated (Like the other examples in the OT of God doing stuff "alone" or others)
"The Greek term dia (through) in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 emphasizes the Logos’s active role in creation, not as a subordinate intermediary but as the divine Word through whom all things exist." - but is he the creator? according to Origen, no he is not.
Origen knows Greek better than you do (and is far more honest)
" not as a subordinate intermediary" - define what you mean, because this and agent mean the same thing.. an agent is subordinate in some sense.
" intermediary" is a synonym to agent - they both by definition are "in the middle" or "in-between 2 things, acting for one or both sides."
(Lets see if you can answer this like a normal person and not a troll)
" This aligns with the Old Testament declaration in Isaiah 44:24 that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth." - Tettulian interprets the Father saying this, not the trinity.
Tetullian believes the Father is thw creator, while calling the son "divine" I dont think ever goes so far to call him explicitly creator. (He knows better)
"The claim that Jesus is not explicitly called "Creator"" - one explicit passage wouldnt hurt, as you expect from the Witnesses, why are you the only exemption to your own rule?
"working in unity with the Father " - Do we not work in unity with The Father, Do not the angels work in unity with The Father?
We preach what Christ told us too. (Christ prayed we would be "one" with him and the Father)
Angels quote God almost verbatum most of the time.
note the Angel in Revelation says "I am the alpha and the omega"(1st person) while quoting what God said for it to tell John.
"Scholars like Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to some aspects of the NWT, critique its rendering of texts like John 1:1c, preferring "divine" as a more accurate translation." - What does Beduhn mean by "Divine"you ever asked him? (I doubt it, you didnt like scholars just on a year ago)
ever ask Goodspeed or Moffat what they mean by "Divine"
probably the same as Origen when he calls angels "divine"
(Beduhn is not a trinitarian so is unlikely to mean the trinitarian "Divine")
He likely means the first meaning that comes up when you google "Divine meaning"
"the present tense in Greek often conveys timeless or continuous existence" - cite all instances. I know of only one where this claim is made.
"this statement is a direct claim to deity." - Opinion, not fact. - your good at presenting opinions as fact, ill give you that.
"While ego eimi can indeed appear in ordinary contexts, its usage in John 8:58 stands out because it is coupled with a temporal clause referring to a time before Abraham's existence. " - you mean like in John 14:9 and others in the LXX to denote something that started in the past, and is continueing in the present?
"Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jewish leaders repeatedly accuse Jesus of blasphemy and equating Himself with God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). In John 8:58-59, their response to His declaration directly follows His claim, indicating they understood it as a claim to divine identity. This reaction highlights the gravity of Jesus’ words and supports the interpretation that He was asserting His divinity." - Tell this one to Harris and other scholars.. some would disagree completely (I reference only trinitarian scholsrs)
" The “I am” statements (ego eimi) throughout the Gospel, particularly without predicates, further reinforce this theme." - I suppose the only exception is where Jesus says "I am" and then is instantly asked "Who are you?"
and when Jesus says his Father is teh Jews "God"
"The critique of the NWT for rendering ego eimi as “I have been” reflects the theological bias of the JWs rather than linguistic accuracy." - more like your theological hate for teh JW.. Wonderment does a way better job convincing me of anything than you do.. because he is
A) not hypocritical
B) not selective (one google serach normally is enough to prove you either incorrect or atlest being selective)
"Even if He used a Semitic phrase equivalent to ego eimi, the Evangelist John chose to convey this in Greek using the present tense ego eimi" - or had little other choice - because you know: translation
The other options you provide are no doubt red herrings as your other "suggestions" are.. you didnt reserach their common usages before make that point did you?
Because I have done teh digging - these are all red herrings, as in common usage they meant something different, to waht you are trying to make out as fact. (defintion to a liar)
"The broader argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God in the Gospels and was only understood as the Messiah or Son of God by His contemporaries is inconsistent with the evidence. " - Read Matthew.. "Son of God" doesnt mean "God". as is evident with a sinbgle lexicon reference for this idiom.
(Whihc im guessing you ignore - ignorance is bliss right?)
"Jesus’ identification with divine prerogatives, His forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-12), His authority over the Law (Matthew 5:21-48), and His acceptance of worship (John 20:28) all point to His divine identity. " - except for the last, all things Old Testament instances could be cited for, but there is little point because you come up with the stupidest (yes this is done on purpose) excues as to why not.
"a clear reference to Daniel 7:13-14, a vision of divine authority." - prime example of selective citations, you gonna provide teh rest of the information to our audience or am I? and make you look a fool.
as for your Origen reference, I will Just cite 1 chron 29:20 and your explanation because that works here aswell.
and why didnt you just cite this in the first place? you know Im never going to believe you as long as more trustworthy people say otherwise right
-
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
"not ad hominem attacks." - you mean not like yours in other places online? under insulting usernames..
" while it is true that Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, referencing it in a broader discussion is not inherently invalid"
- you cite the source from Wikipedia - NO respected academic article cites a wikipedia page..
cite the exception.
I have read many academic articles in my time, NONE have ever cited Wikipedia.
Even Stafford who cites 2 sources from Wikipedia DOES NOT cite the wikipedia article. According to academics Iv spoken to you are WRONG!
What are we to do with Tetullians statment about Idol makers
just before that statement if it is not just directed at false gods?
Allins claims have been addressed with evidence... not hard to find.
The man is totally dishonest in other areas as well - not hard to find with a quick bit of research..
". Many scholars, both Trinitarian and otherwise, have raised concerns about the NWT’s theological bias" - Citation of the "otherwise"?
" even as He is one with His Son." - you omit to mention what gender the "One" is here, neuter or masculine, makes a BIG difference
"leaving no room for any secondary agents—whether false gods, angels, or any other beings. " - Opinion, not fact - moving on.
There are other examples in the OT where God explicitly declares he did something "alone"
"Tertullian explicitly denied that the Son was a subordinate or separate being. " -
where? and he explicitly stated that this statement only includes false gods (Which would include rival gods)...
"Jesus, as the Logos, was the direct agent of creation, fully sharing in the divine essence."
- you know what "agent" means right? - YHWH is not the agent of creation... he was/ is the creator.
see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=agent+meaning&oq=agent+meaning&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDE1MTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
(I genuinely think you don't know what "agent" means - an "agent" is generally subordinate in some sense)
It doesn't mean "creator" it means something other than the original designer
- this wasnt strictly out of the realms of interpretation as there are other sources that state similar.
"For example, Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12) that the Logos is worshiped along with the Father, reflecting his belief in the Logos’s full divinity."
- proper citation? yes what did Origen say tho? I don't want an opinion from you - Mr quote mining accuser who then quote mines himself - full citation please.
"However, the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) "
- Where is Jesus explicitly called "creator"?
Where is the Father explicitly called "creator"?
One is possible to answer, the other one is not.
"Your critique of traditional Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased fails to account for the rigorous academic standards applied in such studies. "
- by only trinitarians, cite the exception if you can.
-
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
"Consensus"
AQ should read this study (I will ask him questions later to see if he actaully does read it - because I know he never read Dixons study when he claimed he did): https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opth-2020-0158/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOooA1zuCCbwwxGECXzL2yPSMLbpWE5D5KwkUJC9--IuM_ySHGRmS
Aq if you said anything in responce to me trying to seperate those called "gods" from Christ - you are BSing everyone here.
You have all these citations in this study to deal with and others I can/ will cite..
-
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 answer AQ's other LONG post when I finish my far more important job later on tonight, if time permits-
if AQWSED ever wants to be trusted on this forum ever again, maybe he should stop spreading misinformation about Beduhn.
- What AQ might not know is Trevor R Allin is a massive liar, pointed out by Wonderment and Edgar Foster, he like alot of trinitarian bias scholars OMIT to mention elements that don't suit their agenda
- Allin cites WIKIPEDIA as a source for things in his attack on Beduhn & the WT, if you know anything about academic articles, citing wikipedia is looked down upon and not considered a reliable source, since ANYONE can alter it.
"However, the broader scholarly and theological critiques of the NWT remain valid and should not be dismissed as merely biased reactions." - this works in reverse aswell... Why should the NWT be dismissed at all, when strictly linguistically "a god" in john 1:1 CANNOT be faulted as inaccurate
"Rendering theos as “a god” not only creates theological ambiguity but also introduces an interpretation that aligns more closely with Jehovah’s Witness theology than with the text’s intent." - except where Church fathers call Logos "allos theos"
and individually Satan is called "a god" and Judges are called "a god" (if we take each judge individually)
if this is metaphorical, why doesn't Origen or Hippolytus mention this - rather they seem to take it literally? Origen treats it as another name for angels.
Don't tell me, they don't mean what they literally said, like Tetullian on isa 44:24 - Where if Tetullian doesnt solely mean it omits false gods, what are we to do with the information just before the statement "caused him to be alone, except "alone" from false gods" (Tettulian interprets The Father saying this, not the Trinity)
"These choices go beyond grammatical fidelity, often reshaping the text to fit a pre-existing theological framework. Such renderings are at odds with mainstream scholarship and the broader consensus of early Christian interpretation." - Why are we making out this is what Beduhn said... when in fact Beduhn is more reasonable and scholarly than you have ever been?
" While the lack of scholarly reviews may limit informed critique, the absence of positive scholarly consensus is also telling. " - in a trinitarian dominated world this is hardly surprising, and there are more than just Beduhn who think the NWT is good.
-
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
On Rev 5:13
Edgar Foster:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/09/bowing-down-to-lamb-in-revelation-5.html
(read bottom paragraph of this post esp)
Why the variant if both were supposed to be worshipped? These variants are:
- Stephanus
- King James TR
-
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
"Your claim that Heb. 1:6 involves a "reapplication" misunderstands the text's theological intent. " - typical I always "misunderstand" but theologically motivated AQ Is always right - so reapplications identify someone right?
Don't forget Jesus inherited a better name than the angels..wouldn't the angels already be worshipping him if he was God? This would not need to be established if the writer thought he was God (the writer didn't)
The angels were TOLD to "worship" Christ... not idolatry when the most high God tells them to "worship" him
"Your appeal to translations like Goodspeed’s or Young’s Bible does not invalidate my argument regarding the NWT's theological bias." - how? in what world? Trinitarians do exactly the same as the NWT... your argument is invalid.
you are ignoring evidence here (whats new - you quote mined aswell, in this very same thread, proof is in the link I posted)"The reference to 1 Chron. 29:20 as a supposed parallel misunderstands the context and semantics of proskyneō. " - both are direct objects of the verb... actually one is technically indirect, but worshipping God would be worshipping his King.
Where does it say they are in different senses? that is YOUR opinion.
yes INTENT AQ INTENT... Why is the Lamb worthy to receive "worship" (or Homage - they are literally synonyms)?literally 1 verse back will answer your question, Why is God worthy to receive worship try ch. 1
"The NWT's rendering of proskyneō as "do obeisance" here is inconsistent with its own principles, as the same word is translated as "worship" when applied to God in other passages." - shall I point out the same inconsistency in other Bibles? Lets start with catholic bibles I can cite atleast 2 verses that do exactly the same thing.
Which bible(s) do you use? ill check if it (they) does the same thing
"For example, John 1:1 is rendered as "a god" in the NWT, but other similar grammatical constructions (like John 1:6) are not translated with "a" in front of "God." " - this is not rightly pointed out as these constructions are not parallels, if you bother to pick p ANY greek handbook John 1:6 is a Dative and can be definite even without the article... there are NOT paralels, literally anyone with knowledge in Greek can tell you that - these CANNOT be compared.
If you read any Greek handbook you will see that constructions are similar only when a case that plays a similar fuction is employed.. i.e not Dative and Nominative
"This statement implies that the predominance of Trinitarianism automatically invalidates their conclusions." - actually it says that if all are trinitarian we are likely to get only trinitarian bias translations.. unless we get super honest scholars who admit it doesn't exist... most are kicked out of these places for such reasoning
" It is possible to worship while grappling with questions or confusion. Worship arises from recognition of worthiness and reverence for God" - you CANNOT worship if you doubt it... worship by definition means having full faith in the thing you worship. No room for doubt. esp for the persons identity (maybe other things sure, we are talking identity here)
"Mainstream Trinitarian translations undergo extensive peer review by experts in ancient languages, history, and theology to ensure consistency and fidelity." - how many of these are not trinitarian?
"respectful dialogue is essential for meaningful engagement. Constructive criticism is welcome, but dismissing others' views without addressing the substance of their arguments undermines the opportunity for genuine discussion. Fact-checking and thoughtful analysis are integral to meaningful discourse, and this response aims to provide both." - what have you fact checked? nothing
Where are your sources to prove you have fact checked? there are none.. I see none.
"genuine discussion"? How can anyone discuss anything with you? its borderline impossible
"The suggestion that I am driven by theological motivation rather than objective scholarship is ironic, given the demonstrable theological bias of the NWT." - deflection much?
this doesn't address the substance of my claim :) so address it
I can post my research to prove your theologically motivated if you like.. (I warn it wont be pretty, alot of research has been done since these long spammy posts have appeared around the internet)
-
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
TTWSYF
that I know of you would be correct, HOWEVER
Alan Duffie (name might be spelt wrong, may be 1 "f", and may have the wrong surname, but will correct if I'm wrong - cant find article)
(ex- Jw)
RolfGreg Stafford
(Active, who have a university education in Greek)
Edgar Foster
How is the NWT inaccurate when trinitarian translations render it similarly?
How many of those organisations are trinitarian dominated? all of them? well there's our answer to that one.
How many of Bible translations add words? NEWFLASH: ALL of them!
How many Bible translations are inconsistent in translation: NEWSFLASH: ALL of them! -
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
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 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
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