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

smiddy3

(I may well be interpreting your comment wrong)

idm if its actually constructive - but our "friend"* fails to realise that most like to be descent human beings here, and cite actual authority's on subjects (not other religious counsels that only one denomination considers an authority)

Its theologically motivated BS that I have a problem with, where the initial post was meant to be a scholarly discussion on the subject at hand - which was then hijacked by someone who ignores "authoritys" in scholarship and goes off things that are still debated in scholarship even today as fact. I would have no problem if they provided actual evidence to support their claims and also were not hypocrites in some departments - but the reality is they are.

You are welcome to say "that's just your opinion" sure ok I can take that, However I would hope (unlike they) would consider an alternative point of view and look at facts to what they are claiming about only one denomination (keep in mind)

* while I have nothing against them personally (except being excessively rude and insensitive at one point) their motives have been revealed recently as to why they post - They are not doing it to be constructive or fair, the posts are theologically motivated with no actual sources cited (Ones that are on JW content are actually very misleading and some downright malicious)
This person claims to be catholic (I cant talk, I don't claim to be anything) but I thought Christians were supposed to be nice even to ones they don't like, did Jesus say go and blast and slander apostates? nope he said the exact opposite.

Jesus went by reason and common sense (of that time) I'm stuffed if I can find it now - but recently I found a quote from Goodspeed who said Jesus was (paraphrasing) One of the most influential people to ever live. I agree with him, however those influences haven't worn off on this person - instead this would be more likely what Jesus described as (paraphrase): "the spirit of this world"

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

PetrW

Finally some [actaully] good scholarship, thank you! I will have a look at your references and get back to you.

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.