Posts by Blotty

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

- I will answer AQ's other LONG post when I finish my far more important job later on tonight, if time permits-

if AQWSED ever wants to be trusted on this forum ever again, maybe he should stop spreading misinformation about Beduhn.

- What AQ might not know is Trevor R Allin is a massive liar, pointed out by Wonderment and Edgar Foster, he like alot of trinitarian bias scholars OMIT to mention elements that don't suit their agenda

- Allin cites WIKIPEDIA as a source for things in his attack on Beduhn & the WT, if you know anything about academic articles, citing wikipedia is looked down upon and not considered a reliable source, since ANYONE can alter it.

"However, the broader scholarly and theological critiques of the NWT remain valid and should not be dismissed as merely biased reactions." - this works in reverse aswell... Why should the NWT be dismissed at all, when strictly linguistically "a god" in john 1:1 CANNOT be faulted as inaccurate

"Rendering theos as “a god” not only creates theological ambiguity but also introduces an interpretation that aligns more closely with Jehovah’s Witness theology than with the text’s intent." - except where Church fathers call Logos "allos theos"

and individually Satan is called "a god" and Judges are called "a god" (if we take each judge individually)

if this is metaphorical, why doesn't Origen or Hippolytus mention this - rather they seem to take it literally? Origen treats it as another name for angels.

Don't tell me, they don't mean what they literally said, like Tetullian on isa 44:24 - Where if Tetullian doesnt solely mean it omits false gods, what are we to do with the information just before the statement "caused him to be alone, except "alone" from false gods" (Tettulian interprets The Father saying this, not the Trinity)

"These choices go beyond grammatical fidelity, often reshaping the text to fit a pre-existing theological framework. Such renderings are at odds with mainstream scholarship and the broader consensus of early Christian interpretation." - Why are we making out this is what Beduhn said... when in fact Beduhn is more reasonable and scholarly than you have ever been?

" While the lack of scholarly reviews may limit informed critique, the absence of positive scholarly consensus is also telling. " - in a trinitarian dominated world this is hardly surprising, and there are more than just Beduhn who think the NWT is good.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

On Rev 5:13

Edgar Foster:

https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2015/09/bowing-down-to-lamb-in-revelation-5.html

(read bottom paragraph of this post esp)

Why the variant if both were supposed to be worshipped? These variants are:

- Stephanus

- King James TR

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

"Your claim that Heb. 1:6 involves a "reapplication" misunderstands the text's theological intent. " - typical I always "misunderstand" but theologically motivated AQ Is always right - so reapplications identify someone right?
Don't forget Jesus inherited a better name than the angels..

wouldn't the angels already be worshipping him if he was God? This would not need to be established if the writer thought he was God (the writer didn't)

The angels were TOLD to "worship" Christ... not idolatry when the most high God tells them to "worship" him

"Your appeal to translations like Goodspeed’s or Young’s Bible does not invalidate my argument regarding the NWT's theological bias." - how? in what world? Trinitarians do exactly the same as the NWT... your argument is invalid.
you are ignoring evidence here (whats new - you quote mined aswell, in this very same thread, proof is in the link I posted)

"The reference to 1 Chron. 29:20 as a supposed parallel misunderstands the context and semantics of proskyneō. " - both are direct objects of the verb... actually one is technically indirect, but worshipping God would be worshipping his King.
Where does it say they are in different senses? that is YOUR opinion.

yes INTENT AQ INTENT... Why is the Lamb worthy to receive "worship" (or Homage - they are literally synonyms)?

literally 1 verse back will answer your question, Why is God worthy to receive worship try ch. 1

"The NWT's rendering of proskyneō as "do obeisance" here is inconsistent with its own principles, as the same word is translated as "worship" when applied to God in other passages." - shall I point out the same inconsistency in other Bibles? Lets start with catholic bibles I can cite atleast 2 verses that do exactly the same thing.

Which bible(s) do you use? ill check if it (they) does the same thing

"For example, John 1:1 is rendered as "a god" in the NWT, but other similar grammatical constructions (like John 1:6) are not translated with "a" in front of "God." " - this is not rightly pointed out as these constructions are not parallels, if you bother to pick p ANY greek handbook John 1:6 is a Dative and can be definite even without the article... there are NOT paralels, literally anyone with knowledge in Greek can tell you that - these CANNOT be compared.

If you read any Greek handbook you will see that constructions are similar only when a case that plays a similar fuction is employed.. i.e not Dative and Nominative

"This statement implies that the predominance of Trinitarianism automatically invalidates their conclusions." - actually it says that if all are trinitarian we are likely to get only trinitarian bias translations.. unless we get super honest scholars who admit it doesn't exist... most are kicked out of these places for such reasoning

" It is possible to worship while grappling with questions or confusion. Worship arises from recognition of worthiness and reverence for God" - you CANNOT worship if you doubt it... worship by definition means having full faith in the thing you worship. No room for doubt. esp for the persons identity (maybe other things sure, we are talking identity here)

"Mainstream Trinitarian translations undergo extensive peer review by experts in ancient languages, history, and theology to ensure consistency and fidelity." - how many of these are not trinitarian?

"respectful dialogue is essential for meaningful engagement. Constructive criticism is welcome, but dismissing others' views without addressing the substance of their arguments undermines the opportunity for genuine discussion. Fact-checking and thoughtful analysis are integral to meaningful discourse, and this response aims to provide both." - what have you fact checked? nothing

Where are your sources to prove you have fact checked? there are none.. I see none.

"genuine discussion"? How can anyone discuss anything with you? its borderline impossible

"The suggestion that I am driven by theological motivation rather than objective scholarship is ironic, given the demonstrable theological bias of the NWT." - deflection much?

this doesn't address the substance of my claim :) so address it

I can post my research to prove your theologically motivated if you like.. (I warn it wont be pretty, alot of research has been done since these long spammy posts have appeared around the internet)

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

TTWSYF

that I know of you would be correct, HOWEVER

Alan Duffie (name might be spelt wrong, may be 1 "f", and may have the wrong surname, but will correct if I'm wrong - cant find article)

(ex- Jw)
Rolf

Greg Stafford

(Active, who have a university education in Greek)

Edgar Foster

How is the NWT inaccurate when trinitarian translations render it similarly?

How many of those organisations are trinitarian dominated? all of them? well there's our answer to that one.

How many of Bible translations add words? NEWFLASH: ALL of them!

How many Bible translations are inconsistent in translation: NEWSFLASH: ALL of them!

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

in Matt 28:17 it says (roughly) "some doubted" - How can you doubt when you worship something? that's an oxymoron

Do you fact check anything before you post? How anyone takes you seriously I will never understand.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

AQWSED:

You should really research this stuff before you open your mouth and call out the NWT on "mistranslations" Ever checked Youngs Translation? and how he renders the 2 verses?

How does Goodspeed's Bible render Matt 4:10??

any competent person could look it up and go "oh Goodspeed does the exact same thing"
How is Goodspeed not wrong, but the NWT is? When they translate the verse in a similar fashion - Could it be more YOUR theological motivation driving that rather than objective scholarship?

you said proskenyo has a range, yeah it does - The full extent goes to the Father NO ONE else.

"If proskyneō were intended to mean mere homage for Jesus, it would contradict the shared divine worship described here." - except in 1 Chronicles, where the exact same construction occurs - yet I would venture to guess you would claim it means different - you CANNOT have it both ways, choose..

"While "worship" in older English usage could include respect or homage, the modern understanding aligns more closely with the biblical context when referring to Jesus. " - When were these Bibles translated? again you have NOT done your research

"Reducing proskyneō to mere "obeisance" in references to Jesus undermines the consistent NT witness to His divine identity." - this is made up BS of your own creation...

What's a synonym to the word "obeisance"?:

https://www.google.com/search?q=obeisance&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

oh look "Worship" "homage" "Veneration" & "honor" - this literally proves you don't even do simple google searches to research any point you make.. Why would I EVER believe anything you say to me? Do you ever get tried of being wrong?

You seem to ignore Hebrews 1:6 is a reapplication - Why? because actaul digging might conflict with your belief? well yes it would. Iv done the digging for you

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

maybe people should consider how Edgar J Goodspeed (a trinitarian) renders Hebrews 1:6 -https://studybible.info/Goodspeed/Hebrews%201:6

Robert M Bowman jr (a source AQWSED has used in multiple posts) said Goodspeed was "one of the greatest scholars in American history."
Ironically even tho Bowman calls Goodspeed this, he later overlooks Goodspeeds translation of a verse that is IDENTICAL to the NWTs and called it "wrong".

So unless AQ wants to argue with not only a trinitarian, but a well respected American scholar, they might want to retract their statement..

Also AQ try a dictionary from the time KJV was translated and look at the meaning for the word "worship" - you are selectively citing to suit YOUR theological position...

+ The angels are TOLD to "worship" Christ, something that WOULD NOT constitute idolotry outside the mosaic law. This is a typical reapplication that could mean something slightly different
Prove me wrong AQ - yes PROVE with sources

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

One explicit statement in one verse that the trinity exists would make me believe the trinity.

(or God himself says he is, When Christ returns - whenever that will be, If God said he was made up of three persons, Ill eat my shoe)

The explicit statement must be confirmed to be original and must include that God is made up of three persons, and these three persons are a single God.

Once any trinitarian can cite what they expect from the Jehovah's Witnesses on multitple topics - then ill believe the trinity, until then, forget it!

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

"Even if et deum were a later addition, it would represent an isolated case, not evidence of widespread manipulation. " - its still manipulation none the less... you cant get around this

"but these are limited to certain instances where people deliberately altered his works. This cannot be generalized to claim systematic corruption across all early Christian texts. " - so you admit tampering with Origens works occurred? because if it happened with Origens what stops them doing it to others? How many people called out this motivation? 2 of how many?

-------------------------------------------------

"which scholar claimed that John 20:28 means precisely that "Oh my God, this is Michael the Archangel, who will come invisibly in 1914 to appoint Russell!" Until you find this, explain to me what the word αὐτῷ means in this verse." -

ok im going to assume this is a joke because we both know what I meant... its not hard to figure out..

look up scholarly articles on thsi subject and you will see how many DENY it affirms anything.

Rahner for one...

The pronoun is easy to explain... its kind of required.

and when did I say it meant "Oh my God"? I didn't, its just interesting its an address not in the vocative form - But all other occurences in the NT Christ is addressed as "kuriee" this being the ONLY exception

see also Rev 7:14 - Where an angel is addressed as "Kuree"

But it is interesting to note that alot of bibles render it as an explanation or doxology rather than a direct address. (Biblehub is the source)

"The problem is that you think of "the scholars" as some universal infallible magisterium who collectively establish The Truth." - I see them as far more reasonable and evidence based than you... you are NOT evidence based at all.. theologically biased and self serving is how I would describe you or atleast is how you come off to me. Your right, everyone else is wrong (1. not true 2. makes you look like a know it all - someone I dont particularly like), what Origen says is NEVER what he meant according to you... why should I beleive you? over many others who know more than you?

Wallace and Robertson are both ones to be "argumentive citers" they will cite examples if they think they can get away with it... I may even email Wallace myself and ask him what he thinks (citing your citations of him to see if he agrees with your portrayal aswell - Which I know is not 100% accurate, I own and have read GGBTB cover to cover)

"The absence of a need to consider alternatives like δεσπότης or θεῖος stems from their unsuitability to convey the same theological weight."- so why does 2 dictionaries I have checked list "δεσπότης " as a synonym to Kurios? check biblehub

notice in the contexts of the relationship specified the word is employed rather than Kurios, because it seeks to convey a certain relationship rather than a more general "authoritative" relationship, which Kurios would serve the purpose of.

"δεσπότης does not carry this association." - Kurious is more a general term. the other is restricted in its usage hence not used, thats your explanation for one.

again a simple google search will explain the others

"Any distinction between the terms must be contextualized rather than assumed to reflect a lower status for Christ." - I look at word usage as that word usage - I dont try to fit my theological agenda around the facts, rather the other way around. That is scholarship

So what does Origen mean when he says the angels are divine? does he mean lower status?

Or "God- by participation"? does he mean lower status? I think he means something else.

""it's kind of godlike, but it's not really that, it’s not a big deal, you know, just like Psalm 82 and Exodus 7:1." " - to say these are not a big deal is undercutting the divine authority Moses had.. and goes against as you would put it "common consensus"

"The rendering "a god" is precisely the explicit denial of this identity" - if I was a trinitarian I would interpret this as "a divine Person"

as is done in other places.

408

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

Blotty

AQWSED:

I will ignore most of your statement due to not only the resistiveness of such statements (which is actually rather annoying, I'm not a sheep, I don't have a memory that lasts 30 seconds) and the scholarly research that has gone into passages like John 20:28 which you for some reason are not citing. (specifically the linguistical scholarship on said passage... you are wrong to cite this passage as it actually proves nothing)

as to my main response:

literally a GOOGLE search will tell you otherwise..

you have ignored 90% of my statement.

"Scholars like Wallace and Robertson have indeed addressed these issues." - and the issue of the other words you claim they would have used? I don't think either of these ever make this argument (because it is invalid)

"You asks for citations of these terms' usage but provide no counterexamples from the LXX or NT that contradict my argument."

- 1. Asks? is this a typo or are you being serious?

- 2. I said "what is the earliest use of these words? and are they used in the NT at all (or lxx)?" this does not mean what you said... are they used? if they are not used in the NT, we have a situation similar to "First-created" where in Pauls time it was neither in common use and another term covered its meaning. (There are other not so famous examples) So Paul would have no need to use it if the term was covered by another.

3. " but provide no counterexamples from the LXX or NT that contradict my argument."

What this then?
"see Mounce for uses of the word: https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/despotes - Where it is used of both Christ and God by my understanding."

I provided no counter examples? I literally linked just one of my many examples - the rest is one google search away.

Never had a proper answer from you:

please define what you mean by: "Christ's full divinity" specifically the word "divinity"

is this a synonym to deity? (in your usage) because to me and a lot of the population they don't mean the same thing. (including the church fathers usage in alot of cases)

again the use of this word by you seems to be different to the majority of the population.

if you wouldn't mind include citations of Bible passages where these 2 are distinguished or used synonymously.

Jehovah's witnesses claim Jesus was "fully divine" before he came to earth. ("fully" = NOT half divine, half sheep as an example)

I can cite plenty of texts to back this up.