Blotty

Joined

• started 13 topics
• posted 154 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Blotty

• 
  171

  Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

  this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

  the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  FragrantAddendum

  Could you provide a source for your claim that the catholic church hid fragments? (a reliable one)
• 
  78

  God, one person, or three?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

  niv.

  gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  " absurd and even ridiculous to have a tantrum of the alleged "later development" - this later development isn't a myth - its true, most encyclopaedia's can tell you this...

  and you mentioning something that developed 2000 years later (apparently) just shows your own insecurity as Wonderment has pointed out...

  Why do you need to point this out? this is self evident.. no one claimed "Jehovahs Witnesses" existed 2000 years ago...

  Just like no Witness claims "Jehovah" appeared in the OT - This is entirely self evident because the writers of the OT didn't know English and Jehovah is an English word.

  If you hate Witnesses and their doctrines so much, get off this forum and go annoy other catholics (quite frankly you put me off Catholicism in general with the way you act - not a good look)
  

  You aren't going to convince anyone here who is not already trinitarian with the way you talk... you have double standards.

  argument from silence really? Witnesses could argue the same thing in the opposite direction and have more success thanks to people like Philo..

  your "human nature" doctrine doesn't really work either... as the context about Philippians 2 is about humility.. and acts 2:36 says he was made "lord" and has no limiting statement to any "nature" in fact one commentary states its related to the psalm cited..

  "The word "Lord" is used with special reference to the prophetic utterance of the Psalm thus cited. There is a rhetorical force in the very order of the words which the English can scarcely give" (Google for source)

  and inheriting fathers names... does that make any son equal to their Father?

  Does Jesus calling God "My God" 4 times in Rev (as a resurrected being) not constitute him not being God because he also isn't "on" the throne (God is on the throne) but "in the midst" of it
  
• 
  79

  John 1:1 in Coptic Translation

  by slimboyfat in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  apparently there has been quite a stir in jw apologetic circles recently about the translation of john 1:1 in the early sahidic version of john.

  i don't know if this has been discussed here before - if someone could give a link to a previous thread they know about on the subject that would be great.

  here is what i gather: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I think you are omitting some information here...
• 
  27

  Quality of jw.org translation?

  by Wonderment in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  someone asked the following question to an artificial intelligence (ai) website:.

  how does the most translated website ensure accuracy of translations?.

  answer: .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  It wouldn't be far wrong as trinitarian translators themselves have translated it similarly... Moffatt and Goodspeed for one, What about Origen on John 1:1? (koine Greek was his mother tongue, he would know)
  (I don't care if these people are universally considered Christians, the answer is related to scholarly/ translation methods, not beliefs)
  
  
  Touchofgrey
  Franz was put in a situation where the question had nothing to do with his translating skills in the first place, not to mention it would not tell us his skills in Hebrew because most who attempt it would get different results for starters and how does his competency in Hebrew account for such in Greek?
  simple, it doesnt My skills in Greek have nothing to do with my native tongue or my Hebrew or Dutch
• 
  56

  Today Dr. Peter McCullough said 'conspiracy theory' (which is in the April 2024 Watchtower) is a propaganda term! 😲

  by was a new boy in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  "misinformation, disinformation, science, this antiscience, uh conspiracy theory, these are propaganda terms.".

  'don't use them' he says.

  @ 19:33. https://youtu.be/miauulndllq?t=1173.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  Slim
  
  With all due respect and no insult is intended:
  It well within the realms of companies to sell things just to make money (look at supermarkets) Im not denying that they would, tho they shouldn't.

  is it proven they know that the drugs are dangerous before distributing them?
  

  I know that underlying conditions can also make matters worse, leading to death. Vaccines have always had side effects (in the hundreds).

  I know of one instance of a vaccine or treatment where deaths are in the 6000's and that is spread all over the internet but it must be considered whether these patients had underlying conditions, known (or unknown) at the time
  
  
  I don't recall any event happening like that where I live, here it is super strict - as far as I am aware anyway, I may be wrong

  (I am not saying where I live in a public forum either - if you know Id rather it not be shared publicly)
• 
  49

  What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

  if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

  the verse says:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  Slim:
  
  I would raise the question of: If any of Jesus' statements like the one in John 8:28 imply shiliach, as looking in the OT we have examples of prophets doing Just as Jesus said he was doing i.e saying something another "greater" person told them to say. - So Why did he make such a claim?
  
  otherwise we raise the question: If Jesus had all this knowledge already, Why did he say he got it from the Father?

  "So the fact that He received all his knowledge from the Father does not prove that He has less knowledge. " - but it raises the question of what the point of him receiving this knowledge is... if he already had it in the first place.. (or so you claim) Why claim something that isnt true of one of his natures? you cant even say it was implied because the two nature doctrine is never even implied at all..
  Justin Martyr does an excellent job on explaining Christs origins (as Wisdom), so does Origen - scripture doesn't call Christ alot of things that you call him.. Some Herbs aren't called Herbs.. but are an exception to the catergory... One Human apparently has no beginning or end.

  and on Jn 21:17 - another scripture claims some humans know everything too - Why are you ignoring that passage, I believe even Tetullian brings this passage up
  
  Iv read through some of the church fathers... they don't claim any of this infact claim to the contrary - Who should I be reading?
  
  Wonderment hit the nail on the head, you are trying way to hard to convince yourself of all this..
  
  
  
• 
  49

  What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

  if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

  the verse says:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I see AQ is still trying, even though being disproven by everyone here, and using the same arguments experts disproved 20 years ago.
  
  you cant use the "was" argument - a trinitarian admitted 20+ years ago that that's NOT how the verb functions even with "beginning" and is just a matter of the writers perspectives (egeneto is a different case.)
  
  as to the original post - Shiliach... its that easy
• 
  13

  Progress on the NWT Study Bible

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the society has been working on the nwt study bible since the revised nwt was released in 2013. so far they done the nt up to philemon.

  that makes about 17% of the entire bible including the hebrew/aramaic scriptures.

  at that rate the study edition of the whole nwt will be completed sometime around the year 2077. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I wonder what Benjamin Kedar kopfsteins opinion on this would be.
  an observation I have of the previous comment is the NWT never uses uses Lev 5:1 as a cross reference to any of the commented on scriptures which is interesting because they are 2 entirely different contexts
  (this may be an error on my part, I did a very quick search and may have missed something)
  
  From what I can see it hasn't been altered at all in meaning rather in NWT style has changed the wording slightly - but all translations do this, e.g Romans 12:11 - which is another not translated literally at all, and infact is one where I would argue the meaning is distorted.
• 
  55

  Trinity Statements in the Dead Sea Scrolls

  by Sea Breeze in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  dr. ken johnson has identified several statements in the dead sea scrolls that predict that god would visit the earth as a man... as the messiah.

  .

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljrfvytjhve&ab_channel=kenjohnson%28biblefacts%29 .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  I will just add here that "Friend of peace" basically is just translating a common Hebrew idiom "son of peace" or as Cambridge puts it " a son of peace, i.e. a man of peaceful heart. Comp... Luke 16:8, Luke 20:36; John 17:12; Ephesians 5:6; Ephesians 5:8."

  (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/luke/10-6.htm)

  does "son" always literally mean "son" - well kind of, it means literal offspring but can also mean the idiom or in other words "son of specified group" - you are "ruled" or "parented" by the modifying noun.

  In this case a peaceful man.. "a friend of peace" while not a literal translation is justifiable based on not only context but also the meaning to the idiom.. but then again if we take one look at the KJV or NIV we will find quite a few non-literal translations in other places.

  Just because the NWT is a "literal" translation, does NOT mean it will translate everything literally.. (research how translation works.) When needed it may need to clear up the meaning of the text for English readers - We know where literal translations get us with the NWT, stilted and wooden translations which others complain about. This argument may sound familiar, and it should be I'm recycling an older argument used on ones who did the same with "theos" in 1:1c (The ONLY singular, nominative, non-prepositional instance of Theos in 1)
  

  NIV uses "someone" that's not a literal translation of the word "huios", is the NIV wrong? no - nor is the NWT
  "a friend of peace" simply means the same as "son of peace" but is a better word picture in English, someone who is peaceful or who likes peace, exactly what this verse is trying to convey.

  Lets look at John 18:37, you would be out of your mind to say the NWT translates this wrong. the literal text (in focus) is:
  "“Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου"

  
  "By "of this world" we are to understand that the nature and origin of His kingdom are not of this world, not that His kingdom will not extend in this world."

  (https://biblehub.com/texts/john/18-36.htm)

  - or in other words as the NWT puts it "part of this world" Christs Kingdom is not from this world, nor has any involvement in it as can be seen from 6:15 and Jesus' actions.

  breaking it down we have ouk meaning "not" "ek" meaning "out of" which is used in the sense of "part" as well in some cases and lit "the world"

  If you want to try and this is a distortion, please go and learn Greek and how ek functions (not just for theologically important texts), as it functions in a variety of ways.

  In sum does [Friend of peace] change the meaning? no, not really. If you want a hyper-literal translation, go and use one.. If you want a paraphrase go and use one.. (I use about 7 different translations) it is by far in the realm of a possible meaning of the text.

  A T Robertson says "It means one inclined to peace, describing the head of the household." - consequently if you are inclined towards something, are you not technically a "friend" of it. (James 4:4)

  anyone who says it (or John 18:36) is not, is either wilfully ignorant or just simply dislikes the NWT for some reason.. Which for the second, may I remind of Golden rule in the Bible?

  sidenote: translate Eph 4:14 literally, then tell me the meaning has been changed or that any bible translation uses a literal translation (not one translates it "literally" - see: Strong's - not even the KJV does, which is odd as I expect it would)
• 
  21

  What does this even mean?

  by Blotty in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  "the son is born of the father by generation, but generation should not be understood in the everyday sense.

  the son is derived from the father through pure spiritual generation, through the unlimited sharing of his essence.

  so, the birth of the son is an intellectual activity of god.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Blotty

  Cool, who asked?

  I have no respect for you.. considering you cant even be bothered to do what multiple people on this forum have asked.. The only thing you have proven is your theologically motivated and not willing to actually have a discussion, only dominate the conversation..
  Or you just want to attack a denomination - not very Christian like, if that's the case.
  you and your "quote-mining" accusations (toward me) can fuck off

  No wonder the Witnesses don't come out and prove anything anymore - I'm not a witness and you piss me off

  You are not worth my time to prove anything too (not that your actually interested anyway)

  nice selective quoting as well and deceptive arguments :D

  Now do me a favour and go away..

  No I don't find it ironic that I say the "Nicene theology" was influenced by philosophy because it quite obviously was/ is.. That is also not hard to prove if you actually read something other than Nicene content..
  

  considering you make no specific claims about "Arian" theology and what philosophy they "took" - your statement is at best questionable, then again your whole divine name "book" is questionable and full of misleading content.

  I don't want to know from you anyway, because knowing what your like it will be either a blatant lie or misleading.

  (regarding: "Arian" theology and what philosophy they "took")

  I wont reply to you again nor will I ask again