Posts by Blotty

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

"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

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Blotty

"it can only be understood in terms of his divine nature." - many would disagree... including the NET - you jump to massive conclusions based on not much evidence.. next you'll tell me Olam in Hebrew means eternity... (it doesn't, according to many dictionaries) you prove my point with John 8:58 that's exactly how Jesus can be Davids Lord & also he is the seed of David

"eternal logos" - I have a theory on that - Humans were created at a point in time right but are later said to live for eternity. eternity can work in 2 different directions past and future. I wonder if ancient Christian writers meant eternity in the future, not past.

John 20:28 is a fun one in light of David being addressed in the same way.

"Mary may be called the God-bearer, "theotokos"" - if you think Mary is the mother of God, where does this word appear in the bible? it doesn't

"Scholasticism was a medieval school of philosophy that employed a critical organic method of philosophical analysis predicated upon the Aristotelian 10 Categories" - lol, literally using a philosophical argument, ok dude

its funny those who go on about an incarnation tend to refer to scriptures but forget the bible says they are 2 seperate things "Divine" and "fleshly" - Jesus was a sinless Human... which is by definition a divine attribute (based on Bible events)

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

Blotty

Greg Stafford and other scholars would have a blast in here - There are many Hebrew words that have an "H" added or translated with a "J" even though there is no "J" in Hebrew

again I reiterate Wonderments challenge (echoed from another user)

The Letter "H":

Lets just look at the Greek (masculine) definite article "ὁ" according to: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BF

The article is an omicron, the 15th letter in the Greek alphabet corresponding the the English "o" (cap: O)
We don't say "O theos" we say "ho theos" and when written most interlinear Iv seen translate this as "ho" though in Greek its just an "O" (Omicron, modifyed)

Ill do a Hebrew example if I have too, But your complaint is not only unfounded but also inherently wrong and biased due to only picking on a single word. When there are other words who according to you adding "h" is unfounded - Go tell that to scholars from the last 3 decades and see how far you get (hint: you will get destroyed)

as to Psalm 110:1,

"Lord according to his divine nature" are you sure? Id take a closer look if I was you - lets take a look at a footnote from the NET bible shall we? (https://netbible.org/bible/Acts+2 - Footnote: 78 ):

"Peter’s point is that the Lord on whom one calls for salvation is Jesus because he is the one mediating God’s blessing of the Spirit as a sign of the presence of salvation and the last days."

The NET Bible has no issue with regarding Jesus as God, however here they neither point to the "incarnation" nor "Godhood" - infact here apparently "God" is someone else.
So David calls him Lord for this reason - but also because he pre-existed David.

also note: Rev 22:16

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

"the Son is begotten from the Father before all aions, not made" - meaning "the world" "the system of things" as in not time itself (see original post)

"the early Christian sources even before the Nicene Creed do not teach anything else" - ofcourse, the trinity doctrine was established roughly in the third century, it existed before hand, pretty sure it can traced to atleast teh second century

" the Nicene Creed uses only New Testament terminology" - course it does

about:

(Hebrews 1:5)

“. . .For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?”

This does not make Jesus exempt please see:

Hebrews 1:5, 13

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son! Today I have fathered you”? And in another place he says, “I will be his father and he will be my son.” …

But to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

Jesus being the archangel would put him in an elevated class over the other angels that appeared after him. Thus, there is no conflict. Even if one views the archangel as a rank within the angels, it would still separate him from the angels as he is superior in so many ways as described in Hebrews 1:2-3.

(https://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/search?q=Hebrews+1%3A5)

also this was said to Jesus when he was a man, not an angel (or archangel) there are many more flaws in your argument but those are the main ones

https://searchforbibletruths.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-hebrews-chapter-1-show-that-jesus.html

about: "The great apostacy"

Other prophecys have different time periods in the bible and is marked out as "representing" rather than the actaul time - so it doesnt discount it

"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

"my goal was not to upset you or to attack you personally" you certainly imply it...

your thoughts are flawed.

for instance Jesus isnt said to be created or "come into being" so he never was shall I list the instances of things that arent stated in the bible?

1. "it's not aorist" - ask Barclay (pretty sure it was Barclay), multiple scholars have said we should understand it as aorist rather than "eternity"

see also Edgar Foster & Daniel Wallace's - Greek grammar beyond the basics

"which is used to show continuous action in the past" - only when past time implications are mixed with a present tense verb. The combination of "beginning" and "was" doesnt always equate to "eternity", actaully never does..

same combo is used of Satan, has he been sinning for eternity - consistancy..

4. "God the Father is not needed to be called "firstborn"" - didnt say God the father I said God..

5. the language you are using - yes I am being vague Im seeing if you can be 100% honest for a change

7. I also said DM it to me... Where are humans, angels called "creatures"... where are angels said to be created? they never were - there are cases where "all" (panta) means "some" or "most" alot of the time the exception is assumed to be known by the readers based on common sense

"The genitive does not at all mean that he is included" - again show me an instance where this is not the case...

"any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. " - no but they are part of the "world" they are king of and the king is part of the country he is king over - however king and lord are superior titles so they are above what they are connected too.

Firstborn is understood as equal or part of the same group. anything firstborn is generally understood to have come into being - else again it would be used of God.

Christ is a highly exalted divine being - yes, but never said to be God in the NT

(see Barclay)

see Greg stafford, Edgar Foster etc

"The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created" - you will have to prove that with scriptural references... monogenes in Greek means of sole descent (I know the word is controversial)

being eternally begotten makes no sense (by definition in general) and is nowhere stated in the bible - the only thing you have to go on is your flawed argument for "beginning" and "was"

Ever consider that "in the beginning" could be referencing 2 different events "In the beginning"? for example I could write:

On June 3rd 2012 I was at school (no mention of me being born, travelling to school, etc)

OR

On June 3rd 2012 I was making a model of a human skeleton (Where am I making this model? based on my previous statement it would have been at school)

Get the point? Bible writers do this often. same time frame slightly different events told in a different order.

"Why should anyone else than the Son called the way the Son is called?" - its the lexical meaning to the word

"and not made of the Father" - huh?

"Lol, here Isaac is not only-begotten Son of God, but of Abraham." - not my point, far from it infact..

"You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24" - ok I will

Job 38:5-8 The angels were with YHWH

now to the actaul context of Isaiah (you isolate that scripture from its immediate context)

less than 10 verses before verse 24 it says: (rough verse guidelines)

44:1- 10 God issues a challenge to false Gods of the nations

11- 19 man made idols "taunted"

24 - 28 how to get back on the right path.

So in some sense this is strictly between God and the man made idols, it does not exclude anyone from being with God at all as Job 38:7 proves outright.

compare: 1 Kings 6:2; 6:14; 7:1; 8:27; 9:10; 15:23; 22:39; 2 Chron. 26:9; Ezra 5:11 - where similar statements are made.

"These statements are explicit and clear" - so are others which you ignore, and they limit God to just the Father - else they could have written the others aswell, 1 time - thats it. Are mint and rue herbs? going by your logic combined with Lukes writings they are not.

" The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this" - it says he creates alone it never says the rest though, and ironically the preposition "dia" most of the time means agency in the NT, and in pauls mind Wisdom was assosiated with Christ - the nicene councel never denied this. This isnt an invention by the Watchtower either as other ancient texts prove.

"Which council said that Proverb 8 is literally about the Son?" - never said it was literally about the son... I said symbollically its different - Wisdom is also the only "thing" to use "I"

"Even Jewish translators (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) preferred to translate the verb in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο, meaning "acquired" or "possessed." " - should be noted all the meanings to the word imply "something that was not possesed before" or in other words a new thing to the subject.

"while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning" - it really doesnt... "born" and "begotten" are used as parralels and basically mean the same, only slight variations - The father even says "Today" I have begotten you - again as you like to claim for us non-trinitarians a simple statement of eternal begetting would not go a miss.

"sharing the same divine essence with the Father." - but humans also share the divine nature with them? are they then God? what about angels? (Who are literally called gods)

Athanasius was well known to state things that contridict the bible - you can research that yourself, infact he was sometimes downright dishonest..

should also look up teh history of that councel..

" the natural son originates from the father by generation." - what does generation mean? again the word implies some sort of beginning. a time either not God or not in existance

" God created the time for man when He separated the days from each other " - dont think so, not according to other bible commentators and scholars..

you also isolate alot of the other texts from their context and twist them to say what you want them to say (aside from 1 or 2)

"f time itself began with the singularity event, it stands to reason that the creator of both time and space would have to be outside of—and unbound by—not only space, but also time." - 1.bible often uses hyberbole and exagerates deeply 2. pretty sure the big bang happened in time... specifically as you say

14 billion years ago

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

"it wouldn't hurt to prove first whether it is possible for the whole Church to fall into "great apostasy" and that "true Christianity" is supposed to be restored " - bible prophesy's this... I omit the rest because its a longshot.. Israel fell into a string of idolotry.. not hard to believe Catholics would.. now whos the one ignoring the bible.

ancient writers statements sound like the trinity because its what the council used as a baseline for the arguments.

"God could not have had a [masterworker]" - holy crap you are really really slow.. shall I list the parallels for the 14th time? shall I list the trinitarian bibles that CR prov with Heb, Col & John? shall I point out no one even in the council said that proverbs wasnt symbolic of Christ

lol the irony o taking things out of context... you do it all the time, in almost every sentence.

you do know everlasting can just mean no strict beginning or end point in Hebrew and Greek right? doesn't mean they dont exist in alot of cases (with few exceptions)

like to see you prove the outside of time argument based on what a heavily biased trinitarian website says - and your the one making the argument, not anyone else.

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

1. Im not ADHD - atleast I have the decency to object to actual argument instead of being a child and talking around the issue - you don't address the real issue, I have already said why First-created is never applied to Jesus (try Greg Stafford aswell, or Edgar Foster). How many people on here have asked to make your posts shorter... I can cite atleast 5.
you have no respect for others opinions and objective evidence so in turn I have no respect for yours and dont have time to read your posts.. you say Im being disrespectful by pasting a bunch of links - but you are being no better when others (not myself) ask for shorter posts and you refuse, your just as bad as I am, arguably worse.

you talk about many issues but only cite one side of the story- where's the other half?

2. I'm not affiliated with the Watchtower in any shape or form, so they are not my "bosses" - you can go smoke that one..

3. shall we just list a few famous who said we should understanding "was" as aorist? try Barclay - if you read my cited sources awhile back there are a bunch listed on there, you know the bit where you said I was disrespectful

4. Where is God as a whole called "Firstborn" because God is pre-eminent over all creation aswell right?

6. why would I cite to you where your Greek philosophy lies? you give me no reason to want too, as this is nothing but a wind up.. Just look at the language you use and compare, it aint hard - or try a catholic dictionary, where most ADMIT the trinity is a made up fabrication. tho protestants have a hard time with this..

" where does the New Testament use the terms 'ktizo', especially 'poio', for the origin of the Son from the Father? " - there's a grammatical pattern your missing, but ill let the "genius" figure that one out.

list everything created and where it is called a "creature" Dm me that list - everything had better be explicitly called a creature + it had better come from the books of the bible (Gen - Rev) no where else.

shall we look at the other usages in the lxx where the one called firstborn was not only part of its respective group (sons of, creation etc), but also the first one in a position. Who all had a beginning.

I have opened it up, you can stop selectively quoting now..

did anyone called firstborn only have pre-emminence and was never born... if it only meant pre-emminence and not its lexical meaning then it shouldn't be applied to anyone else
Jesus is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead - because he was not only part of the group (dead) but also the first one resurrected under what I believe is called the "new covenent" hense "First" or "beginning" of that respective group. (the resurrections God performed through him, no longer matter) just as in Hebrews 11:17 theres a reason monogenes is used of Issac - he is not eternally begotten as trinitarians would have it (if they were consistent) but is the only begotten (GRK means: sole descent/ lineage) of Sarah and her "new" husband.

still waiting on an example of where someone is called firstborn but not part of the group. - nobody else on here can find me an example. and no Ro. 8:29 doesnt count ask any of the sources I cited previously. it means the same.. (see biblehub aswell)

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

aqwsed12345

way too long not even gonna bother reading - 90% of what you say is inspired by Greek philosophy
multiple scholars have refuted the "was" argument - the different words are easy to explain if you would just look at their usage in the NT
Note the word for first-created was not in common use until the days of the LXX - first created and firstborn have parallel meanings

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 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

commentaries on Biblehub say:

he made the worlds] Literally, “the aeons” or “ages.” This word “aeon” was used by the later Gnostics to describe the various “emanations” by which they tried at once to widen and to bridge over the chasm between the Human and the Divine. Over that imaginary chasm St John had thrown the one wide arch of the Incarnation when he wrote “the Word became flesh.” In the N.T. the word “aeons” never has this Gnostic meaning. In the singular the word means “an age;” in the plural it sometimes means “ages” like the Hebrew olamim. Here it is used in its Rabbinic and post-biblical sense of “the world” as in Hebrews 11:3, Wis 13:9, and as in 1 Timothy 1:17 where God is called “the king of the world” (comp. Tob 13:6). The word kosmos (Hebrews 10:5) means “the material world” in its order and beauty; the word aiones means the world as reflected in the mind of man and in the stream of his spiritual history; oikoumene (Hebrews 1:6) means “the inhabited world.”

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. "Οἱ αἰῶνες, saecula, pro rerum creatarum universitate est Hebraismus" (Bull); cf. Hebrews 11:3, καταρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῤήματι Θεοῦ: also 1 Corinthians 2:7, πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων: and 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. Hebrews 1:2

In the writer's thought heirship goes with creation. Christ is heir of what he made, and because he made it. As πάντων, in the preceding clause, regards all things taken singly, αἰῶνας regards them in cycles. Ἀιῶνας does not mean times, as if representing the Son as the creator of all time and times, but creation unfolded in time through successive aeons.

Additional Note on ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον eternal destruction, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Vincent)

Ἁιών transliterated eon, is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (περὶ οὐρανοῦ, i. 9, 15) says: "The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the eon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (αἰών) is said to leave him or to consume away (Il. v. 685; Od. v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mytho-logical period before the beginnings of history. The word has not "a stationary and mechanical value" (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached.

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."

In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of eons. A series of such eons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. See Ephesians 3:11. Paul contemplates eons before and after the Christian era. Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 10:11; comp. Hebrews 9:26. He includes the series of eons in one great eon, ὁ αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων the eon of the eons (Ephesians 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the throne of God as enduring unto the eon of the eons (Hebrews 1:8). The plural is also used, eons of the eons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Romans 16:27; Galatians 1:5; Philippians 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.

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. Ἁιώνιος means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, lxx, Exodus 21:6; Exodus 29:9; Exodus 32:13; Joshua 14:9; 1 Samuel 8:13; Leviticus 25:46; Deuteronomy 15:17; 1 Chronicles 28:4. See also Matthew 21:19; John 13:8; 1 Corinthians 8:13. The same is true of αἰώνιος. Out of 150 instances in lxx, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Genesis 48:4; Numbers 10:8; Numbers 15:15; Proverbs 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Habakkuk 3:6; Isaiah 61:8.

Even Greg Stafford in a footnote argues:

The dichotomy made by Trinitarians between “created” and “begotten” is

self-serving and intended to explain how in some sense Jesus can be God’s “Son” or

even “only-begotten” or “firstborn,” without being “created.” Though some distinction

can be made between these terms, ultimately what is meant is that the one begotten or

created is given life by another. Beyond this, however, the actual spiritual or heavenly

‘birth’ or creation process is beyond our experience, and so it is understandable only by

analogy. That is precisely why the Bible uses terms like “firstborn” and other birth or

creation terms that we can use in relating to the relationship between God and the

prehuman Jesus. Therefore, the use of such terms in describing Jesus’ relationship with

his Father strongly suggests some event took place which constituted the Logos “onlybegotten,”

“firstborn,” and God’s “Son,” and which resulted in the Father being “the

Father” and not “Son.” Bowman (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, page 83)

argues, “The Bible does not actually say that the prehuman Jesus was begotten by the

Father at some point in time.” But it does not say the Logos was begotten outside of

time either! The Bible teaches that the prehuman Jesus was ‘begotten’ or ‘created’

(according to Prov 8:22ff.), which is everywhere else understood in such relationships

to take place “in time”

72

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

Blotty

Can we just get one thing straight?
Jehovah is a translation of the divine name in the OT scriptures YHWH - so no the form "Jehovah" specifically doesn't appear in the OT, however it cannot be argued the name does..
People who have an aversion to "Jehovah" should also then have an aversion to every other name in the bible especially Jesus (or the Word) and the holy spirit (since they are God as well) Why is it only the "son" has a name "Jesus" or "The word" yet apparently "Father" is the Fathers name and "holy spirit" is the holy spirits name..

"Since there is no God named "Jehovah", this is a medieval misreading" - there is no person named "Jesus" in early times either, they are both transliterations of the original language manuscripts, you can twist these words anyway you like, however you know exactly what he meant, else you would be citing him all over the place to prove your trinity.. like you have others.

"There is no /dʒ/ sound in Hebrew." - shall I list the names that start with a "Y" and translated as "J" in English? I have gathered an entire table of them... better yet do the "research" yourself its not hard, Ill start and you go and look up the names in NIV, ESV or whichever bible you like:
Jacob
Jehoram
Jerusha
Jehu
Jehoaddan
(try the cited sources here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_names_starting_with_J)

you have some points on George Howard, however you'll have trouble with other scholars who agree with him - like it or not his theory cannot be dismissed..
funny how the only name [that is absent] is the one that allows the trinity to thrive.. Shall we also mention that every pre-christian copy of the LXX contains the name not the surrogate..

The rest of the babbel on "I am" and other stuff I will simply say: go and do better research, check the LXX and learn what the past progressive idoim is. (+ what James white and Daniel Wallace have both said on this subject)

""The "Lord's Prayer" is a prayer addressed to our Father. If Jesus really wanted to encourage the use of the Name with the Lord's Prayer, why should we call God Father, why doesn't the prayer start like this: "Our Lord...", or like this: "Our Jehovah"?
- very bad scholarship - what I would consider psuedo-scholarship... How many articles do I need to cite? if "name" meant something other than "name" then it is interesting in the OT such emphasis is placed on the Divine name, also curious that Isaiah refers to the divine name as "Father" a (known) Hebrew idoim in the creation clause (look it up).
sanctifying Gods "being" is pointless, because his "being" is already holy and not smothered - got a lot of questions to actually answer here.

also lets just remember:

(John 8:26, 27)

“. . ., the One who sent me is true, and the very things I heard from him I am speaking in the world.” 27 They did not grasp that he was talking to them about the Father.”

(John 8:54)“. . .It is my Father who glorifies me, the one who you say is your God.”