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

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

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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

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

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

Blotty

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

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

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

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

72

Romans 9:5

by aqwsed12345 in

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

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

god, who is over all, be praised forever.

Blotty

Seabreeze:

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

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

compare [strict] usage of arkhe and arkhon

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

For your information the Reasoning Book says:

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

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

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

1) nowhere is the two nature doctrine stated

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

Where are the scholarly citations to support your point?

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

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

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

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

11

John 5:27 and Harners thesis

by Blotty in

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

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

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

Blotty

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

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

11

John 5:27 and Harners thesis

by Blotty in

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

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

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

Blotty

Conclusion to Harners thesis: https://digilander.libero.it/domingo7/H7.jpg

In 1973 A Scholar by the name of Philip B Harner published an article in the journal of biblical literature that would be "revolutionary" he concluded that anarthorous predicate nouns preceeding the verb were primarily qualitative in nature.

In my view Harner was correct, though he didn't agree with the "a god" rendering he also disliked the "God" rendering in John 1:1c providing an alternative which bibles like the NET have paraphrased (to my knowledge)

One he didn't cover in his thesis was John 5:27 I would say this "authoratative" why? because the word for authority occurs in the same text where we have the following:

καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ κρίσιν ποιεῖν, ὅτι υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν.

see here for the meaning to word rendering "authority": https://biblehub.com/greek/1849.htm

AS can be seen we have (Lit) son of man is.

I am aware that genitives can be definite even without the article, a point some still don't seem to get.. But its true check Dana and Mantey

Anyway in conclusion I would say this is "authoritative" rather than qualiative as the emphasis is not on the identity of the son of man, nor a characteristic but rather as said earlier in the passage "authority"

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 world was created by the Father." This is grammatically passive" - and no this would be active, as the subject, The Father performed the action, not received it. This might be so in English but in Greek that is not how it works..

see Wallace Greek Grammar beyond the basics page references above.

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

I thought I told you to go and start your own thread

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

So what are you gonna do if I just say: cool you win, I cant be bothered because of these long posts anymore.. seriously my head hurts

- its a hollow victory

- you proved nothing, except you can be excessively annoying and not listen to anyone else's opinion and everything is a contradiction (if you did try and talk to people I suggested I can see why, somewhat, your a waste of time - your right, every other opinion or interpretation is wrong - your not infallible and if you think you are please go and see a doctor)

- you wasted time arguing with some nobody on the internet

- you dominated the rhetoric, ignoring things complained when I "quote mined" complained when I cited an entire book complained when I paraphrased

- failed to prove anything, ever (Firstborn, not having a temporal priority)

You do know saying things, over and over doesn't make you automatically right? no matter how many times its said

My suggestion: go debate an actual scholar, then maybe people on here will take you seriously

So please get out of my thread (topic, whatever) - and go and start your own... let others have a say and an actual constructive discussion - you are not welcome until you can make shorter posts

My final response will follow, though I have barely tried in this one:

yeah your right - Id rather you didn't provide sources for your claims they are all as misleading as you.

For someone who has no credentials you certainly make big claims - which are disputed by people who do - I believe them over you anyday. espeacially on the subject of this topic (thread)

Furoli - ok a wikipedia source, not credible as anyone can make it say what they like, Ill contact him (somehow) and ask him myself. (your claim will be quoted)

"you just reflexively pushed aside saying "misleading"" - another claim without evidence, How do you know I havent read them all before, I can predict what they will have you know (are they all as annoying as you? long posts, when asked to shorten, acts like they know everything)

"you didn't answer" - shall I point out all the objections you havent answered? , if you dont have to answer neither do I- or go debate Greg Stafford (or a real scholar), you wouldnt dare - I may not have all the resources and time to take you but Im sure there would be some profesor who is more than willing.

You can say the WTS has no credibility, fine ok - you cant say the same of Edgar Foster (P.HD) or Greg Stafford, because they have never done it.

"together with the "Jehovah" from all NT manuscripts?" - explain all copies of the pre-christian Lxx having the name then... seems odd it was in those, then *poof* gone and in the Hebrew scriptures (but you know what Bible actaully uses the name in the OT? not many, but then claim acccurate bible translation)

" the latters should be interpreted in the light of the fuller statement." - ok then, well interpret the passive in light of Hebrews 1:10, the only interpretation you can get out of that is at some point he had an active role then it went to a passive.. otherwise Paul is just inconsistant because the verb he uses is Passive not active like in Genesis 1:1.

You should really boot theology when grammatical structures dont agree. - you have no respect for the dia + genitive construction found in many places.

again in the scriptures I cited before - Did Solomon actaully lift a finger, I doubt it.. cultural thing. why is one saying "Solomon built" then just verses later "[the people] built" - Who made the plan for the building? Solomon - Solomon is the "original cause"

persay. thats how it worked.

"The lxx is not inspired" - neither are your councels, they can claim what they like, burden of proof is on you (your scriptural citaions prove nothing, only what you want me to see).. and just because it is not inspired doesnt mean it cant be cited for grammatical structures.

"which is a valuable source for textual criticism, but is of no importance in this case." - ofcourse now its not, because it disagrees with you.

Why dont we look up the meaning to the word in a dicitonary? oh wait you threw Vines aside when it disagreed with you. your no better than the WT despite what you claim.

"and cherubs rank above archangels, that's why Michael did not "dare" to judge Satan." - hmm no - its because Jesus was given the authority too.

"Jesus ceased to be a man, and is now only an archangel" - ceased being a sinless (or perfect, same thing really) man and back to archangel, keeps him out of both catergories so he can be a mediator.

if he is a "person" of God = he cant mediate, because is God

if he is a sinful human = he cant mediate, because he is sinful

" according to Paul, "the man Jesus Christ" is?" - you like to see scriptures conflict with one another dont you.. ever consider "point of view" or "identification" might of concern? you miss a key scripture but your the expert so you can find it.

(because im getting bored of you and your excessively long posts, as are others - if you could do shorter posts then maybe ill continue)

The only class left is one of the classes of angel or sinless man

(or the demon class, but I dont think that would happen)

"giving creation the same degree of respect, i.e. adoration, worship, as God, is the very definition of idolatry." - but the word used in John 5:23 is not proskeneo, Its timōsi

see: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/5-23.htm

"if you compare John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1, it also proves that Jesus is Yahweh too." - really? context would dictate otherwise..

"it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - My position is slightly different to what your trying to make out, but ok dude - cool you win

"he is still a creature, however Scripture does not state this. Still: for the origin of the Son from the Father, it consistently uses the terms begotten/born."

- yes you said this already about 3000 times, Im working on a responce to this [false] claim, but for now, its up to you to prove the eternal generation doctrine in light of:

(choke on these)

“The term Homoousios had begun to become current with Heracleon [c. 160 A.D.] who had claimed that those who worshiped God in Spirit and in truth were themselves spirit and ‘of the same nature [homoousios] as the Father’.” - p. 394., note #111, The Rise of Christianity, W. H. C. Frend (trinitarian), Fortress Press, 1985.

“The ‘eternal generation’ of the Logos did not for {Origen} imply that the Logos is God’s equal; being ‘generated’ or ‘begotten’ entailed being secondary - i.e., subordinate.” - p. 93, A History of the Christian Church, Williston Walker (trinitarian), Scribners, 4th ed.

also see: https://newworldtranslation.blogspot.com/search?q=eternal+generation

"Check THIS " - the quotes come out meaning literally the same... I dont get the persons point. And you wonder why I toss your non scholarly sources aside.

"are explicitly stated in the Bible, or are they also "only the basis", which requires WDS interpreation?" - because Im humble and not an insensitive [ twit] I can admit when I dont know something because of lack of research.

"Where did you read this?" - Where in John 1:1 does it say he made the heavens?

you keep waffling on about The Word "was" "in the beginning" yet fail to address any refutation I have made (about 3).. John was inspiried to write what he wrote, ok - So he knows all the details? you place way to much emphasis on the combination - I agree with Wallace..

" then he did not create "alone"" - and yet other places in the bible establish this very concept. WHo did he have to "create" with? no one. the agent only does what he says, nothing more.

" You can see what they said about this verse HERE." - no thanks Ill take scholarly sources over theologians anyday.

"Why should I?" - for a change prove your claim using actaul scholarly methods, not councels who you claim to be infallible (if the people individually are infallible then so is the coucel, logic) because its not possible.. because in every occurence it has some form of temporal meaning.. and the one called Firstborn is part of the group.

"The Father is also called the "arkhe" in Revelation 21:6." - theres a subtle difference in Rev 3:14 and Revelation 21:6

Revelation 3:14 only has arkhe whereas in 21:6 its not only right next to alpha and omega, but also has "and the end" coupled onto it, so not a true paralel. nice try though

I notice you avoid burden of proof like nobodies business.

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

You can repeat yourself all you like, until I see some actaul scholarly evidence (and not early church quotations) you wont get anywhere with me. Or anyone for that matter.

"I can recommend THIS, THIS, THIS, and THIS." - these are very misleading and infact in themselves wrong - I could refute these as the quotes while maybe misleading in the authors intentions, still actaully stand - George Howard never said anything about quoting him "incorrectly" he just said they put too much leniance on his work.

" the unsuspecting reader cannot know what is God's word and what is the Society's." - Do I need to make you look stupid, most if not all bibles do this to some extent - 1 for 1 translation is not actaully possible, every translation is going to add words

Hvae you ever actaully done translation from 1 langauge to another and tried to convey and accurate meaning?

"In fact, the date 1914 is very important for the Watchtower," - besides my point..

"John 1:14 "and the Word was made flesh", that's where the term "Incarnation" comes from" - a similar verb is used of a certain human.. reserach that one.

1Peter 3:18 - does not say that actaully, if you bothered to check scholarly sources

Heres' an example:

Elip 1

"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Elip 2

"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). ... Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Full quote:

"Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). The earliest Christians, however, had to cope with the implications of the coming of Jesus Christ and of the presumed presence and power of God among them—i.e., the Holy Spirit, whose coming was connected with the celebration of the Pentecost. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were associated in such New Testament passages as the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19); and in the apostolic benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Corinthians 13:14). Thus, the New Testament established the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity."

[Google the citaton]

you can see by this demonstration that your claim of "quote mining" is 1) without basis for me & "EtT" 2) a claim you cited zero evidence for (For me and others) and 3) doesnt change or alter the message at all elip 1, leaves a bit more in regarding "implications" elip 2 removes the extra bit from elip 1 and doesnt change the meaning at all.

All that the example shows is some trinitarians bias opinion has been removed, which is besides the point anyhow, I elip to focus attention on what I want you to read without pasting screeds, admittedly this example is stolen from someone else which is also besides the point. The point is even trinitarians themselves admit the NT is only the BASIS for the doctrine and it is not taught in scripture.

"The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies. Initially, both the requirements of monotheism inherited from the Old Testament and the implications of the need to interpret the biblical teaching to Greco-Roman religions seemed to demand that the divine in Christ as the Word, or Logos, be interpreted as subordinate to the Supreme Being. An alternative solution was to interpret Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three modes of the self-disclosure of the one God but not as distinct within the being of God itself. The first tendency recognized the distinctness among the three, but at the cost of their equality and hence of their unity (subordinationism); the second came to terms with their unity, but at the cost of their distinctness as “persons” (modalism). It was not until the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons."

("copied" from endnote [11] https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html - read this and reserach it :) )

"This method does not want to research or understand" - this is something I would love to see you prove about me. Just because I dont agree with your sources means I havent done digging? on what planet?

Luke 24:39 - you convieniantly omit 1 Peter 3:18 and 1 Corinthians 15:45 from your list.

"You continue to avoid the statement" - am I avoiding? or is it just I cant be bothered dealing with you repeating the same stuff over and over, which doesnt make it automatically true.. doesnt make it a fact, you like debating do debate someone who is actaully an apologist, not someone who has other responsibilitys, something you dont seem to understand.

"Can a creature be honored in the same way ("just as") as God?" - the answer is yes (in some sense of the word) We honor everyone as we do God, we just honor God in some extra ways. [this is a very dummed down explanation]

""But when he brings his firstborn into the world, he says: 'Let all God's angels worship [proskuneó - προσκυνέω] him.'"" - you quote this - 2 observations

1) the angels are told to "worship" him

2) the same word is used in the LXX of God and humans.. thats how I would answer ""And how do you know that it is the other one?""

" According to this, there can be only one of all things that are mentioned in the Bible only in the singular? " - didnt know someone could distort my point so much they get this out of it.

Where is another Archangel meantioned in the bible?

other things are clearly taught in the bible which you ignore...

"if you are looking for "active" participation, you will find it in Hebrews 1:10." - Hebrews 1:10 must be taken in light of the passive role in John 1:3, Hebrews 1:2 and Col 1:16 (dia + genitive expression) Just 8 verses back it says in Hebrews 1:2 Through the son - so the son did have a role in creation, though is not the creator based on Col 1:16 and changing the forms of the verb and noun.

Daniel Wallace states "The logos is represented as as creator in a "hands on" sort of way, with the implication of ultimate agent. This is the typical pattern (though, not exclusive) seen in the NT Ultimate agency is ascribed to God the Father (with: upo). Intermediate agency ascribed to Christ (with dia)... Ft:81 [on impersonal agency of the spirit]"

Greek grammar beyond the basics: 434

John 1:3 https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html

Hebrews 1:2

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/hebrews-1.html

Col 1:16

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/colossians-1.html

look at these, nothing taken out of context xD cant be theres nothing that I need to elip.

"he creates by himself, without any kind of "passive" participation" - the scriptures above would disagree - many scholars and theologians have debated this, many trinitarians have even come to the conclusion - Angels participated in some way, even if that means shouting in praise, still participating (passively) (see NET Bible - Gen 1:26 footnote)

Your beliefs go against the very grammatical structures that the writers used - if they wanted to say Jesus was the creator they could have just used "Ek autou". The Father alone created through the agent (Jesus)

Why does the bible explicilty have to say Jesus is "creature" (kind of implied - look at Wallace citation) because he is not just a "creature" - while he is part of creation he holds a very speical position far from any mere "creature"

John 2:19 - Even A.T Robertson would disagree, which of the church fathers said this? since they are infallible according to you

"it has not yet become a proven fact that this so-called "philosophy" is wrong." - if it contridicts the bible it is, but hey how about i just leave a citation for you to read:

“Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it…The Greek language, having reigned for centuries over philosophy, became the vehicle of Christian literature and ritual; The Greek mysteries passed down into the impressive mystery of the Mass. Other pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist result. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine Trinity” (The Story of Civilization, vol. III [find a pdf version of this book and search this quote])

"Check: Is Prototokos a 'Partitive Word?' and THIS." - these are simply wrong - cite me an instance, where firstborn followed by a genitive (or in general) where the subject is not part of the catergory it is firstborn of? (not Col 1:15) even [Firstborn of death] its still part of the group "diseases" not an exception to it.

"branded by you as "apostate"" - thats a wild accusation to make with zero evidence. I never said christendom is apostate..

"which are about the creation of created things." - John 1 doesnt talk about the creation of the heavens and earth, only earth.. I notice the angels being present is also omitted, not to mention the holy spirit

John 17:3 - Jesus talks about "before the world was" not before "time" or anything else you want to come up with.

"not "all other things" - as the WTS brazenly falsifies" - So he made God? thats what 'all' implies, Paul even marks God as a "thing"

"all" has some 7 -8 meanings in scripture - Paul rarely if ever means everything (without an exception)

" how do we know that it actually means exactly that here?" - Rev 3:14, Where John follows the model of Micah 5:2 with:

Arkhon = ruler

arkhe = begining

NO exceptions

In Johns other writings you will never find he uses arkhe for ruler (First cause, originator or anything of the sort)

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

So now I only paraphrase its ok for me to quote? make up your mind

" its infamous publication in this regard - 'Should You Believe in the Trinity?" - is it? I can find no evidence of this.. and just because part of something is cited, though the whole thing may not agree with your point of view is common practise, why only put this on Jw's? I have never seen it condemed when trinitarians do it - you, with WT writings, I dont say your wrong too, I do say you could be abit more transparent with context though (as could the WT in some cases, but since you like to take my words out of context, ill add that they have never "quote mined")

"Besides the fact that he was also kicked out of the JW denomination and then wrote a book that the Governing Body is unbiblical" - was he kicked out? have you heard from him what happened? or are you repeating rumours?

"Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. ... F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history." -

funny Iv heard similar about the JW's rendering of John 1:1c, turns out scholars (and ancient translations) prove they were correct.

Even Harner admits the translation is possible. (though for theological reasons says its not "justifiable")

Metzger once said it was a "frightful mistranslation"

well no its not when you look at the paralels in the very same book. even later correcting himself saying it is possible, but from the context is the least likely..

(Tho the context is debatable, Metzgar is honest the second time round)

Edgar J Goodspeed and James Moffat both rendered it as "divine" Goodspeed explaining it functions as an adjective rather than identity (in a footnote).

Whatever the date whether 1914, or however many years back - is besides the point anyhow.

"This still makes no sense, because if you believe this to be true" - I dont believe war is correct or killing one another is correct, does that mean I have to go and fight to end the war?

nice try but it doesnt work that way

I gurantee your a hypocrite here.I gurantee there will be something you believe is correct but not doing anything to defend - so hypocrite.

"This knocks out the entirety of Restorationist theology. After all, who founded your "church"?" - what church?, Im of no denomination - I agree

with Witnesses on 80% of things, the other 20% is what keeps me away.

"Well, if Jesus is no longer a man, and the 'man Jesus' is our mediator, then what?" - considering he was raised as a spirit, but Greg Stafford can deal with you

in that department.

"You are talking about something else now" - Im not, but hey your far too self absorbed to see that..

"His primary and real role was not to die for the forgiveness of our sins, but to defend Jehovah's name, justify His sovereignty, and establish His kingdom."

- source? Id say they were all his "primary" motive in some sense, since they all relate...

"God does His part, man does his, and the two together result in redemption. However, this view is in irreconcilable contradiction with the gospel of the sinner's salvation by grace alone." - grace alone?

" irreconcilable contradiction" - what drug are you on?

"Jesus here asks the Father for the disciples to "be one"" -

1) Im using an argument I came up with, I know of no such WT argument that matches. (I know of a somewhat similar one, but disagree with it, for the very reason you mention, well part of it)

2) My argument is essentially on the meaning of "Kathos" we all know what the neuter form of "one" means One [thing] rather than the one [person] which would be the masculine form, admittedly the feminine Im not 100% sure on, I dont think a feminine exists in koine for "one" but anyhow.

"we would conclude that the perfection of the Heavenly Father is attainable by humans." - no we wouldn't, because Kathos doesnt mean "identically" it means "just as"

The basis for your argument remains weak since its the same context, word for "one" (neuter) linked by "kathos". if one means

"the Son must be honored in exactly the same way, just as the Father. " then IF John 10:30 means Jesus and his Father share identical natures + essense (and whatever else) and "kathos" is used here aswell then it means the disiples were "one" in exactly the same sense (Divine, nature etc)

you change the meaning to "Kathos" in the 2 different scriptures.

since it doesnt mean "exactly" but "similar" as in the "slave was treated as the master" we have a different side of the story (One you infact omit, or muddle)

"Well, it's just that what you claim is not being said here, it is clear that in this case, it is still God "himself" who createss (even so that the Son himself is God), not through a creature-archangel."

- explain the passive occurence in Col 1:16 then - in every other occurence, When God is mentioned creating its the active..

" God's omnipotence does not extend to conceptual impossibilities" - How is impossible in view of the passive verb?

You will have to prove otherwise, when God (I assume you think this means all 3 person) is mentioned "creating" the verb used is active, rather in Col 1:16 with dia followed by a genitive its passive.

you claimed I knew nothing of linguistics, well turns out I do, and Im going to go really hard on you with linguistics, because at the end of the day, you need linguistics to understand the bible whether you like it or not.

again

If we change the passive clause to an active one by making the verb active and by changing the subject to an object, it becomes

clear that Jesus is not the Creator, especially in view of the instrumental en auto. The Father is the only one who could rightly be viewed as the Creator in this context, and

He is mentioned in verses 13, 14 and 19. Verse 19 is particularly instructive, for it, too, uses the instrumental en auto in reference to Christ, and eujdovkhsen k.t.l. refers to the

action of the Father. Another passive verb, e[ktistai (ektistai) is used at the end of verse 16, and in an active clause has God doing the creating through and for (or ‘in[to]’) Christ.

dig your way out of this one..

"But how it would become clear from the context of Colossians 1:16 that Jesus is also a creature is not clear."

- because its the lexical meaning to the word.. see BDAG + the use of the passive verb.

"PSALM 89:27: David, who was the last born son of Jesse (cf. 1 Samuel 16:11), is called “first-born.”

JEREMIAH 31:9: Ephraim, who was born after Manasseh (cf. Genesis 41:51-52), is called “first-born.”

EXODUS 4:22: Israel is called God’s “first-born” son.

JOB 18:13: An illness is called “the first-born of death.”"

- answered 90% of these previously, you ignore that.

On Job 18:13 - its an idiom for the most deadly - you can find the temporal priority bit yourself, it exists + they are all still part of their respective groups, not an exception to them

"The burden of proof is on you" - why? you make the claim of more than one archangel to me, I asked for a scholarly source , you can do it when critisizing Furoli but cant now?

The bible is the final authority and never uses the plural form of "archangel" but only singular (and never mentions any other archangel)

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/04/revelation-81-2-and-seven-angels.html

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2018/07/answering-questions-about-judaic.html

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/search?q=archangel

"He could hardly speak of that, since John was not even alive at "the beginning"" -

he could, quite easily - I can talk about my point of view of something in the distant past just as you can.. History books can do it. Your being misleading here to bolster your argument. IF we cant talk about something that happened in the past without being there, Why does the past tense exist?

"the time began with "the beginning", there was no time "before" the beginning." - according to Constable of the NET bible that is rooted in Greek philosophy (Origin and Philo used this argument)

not a bible teaching..

"Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting" - yet we have other bibles rendering as "Days of Old" why? because Olam can also simply mean "no specifically stated beginning or end"