THANK YOU! someone else who sees the selective and distorting nature - so I'm not crazy then
Blotty
JoinedPosts by Blotty
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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..
-
-
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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
AQ - can you read? or do you need to go back to primary school?
"which undermines the general rejection you initially implied." - Its moe you just cant read..
"For instance, in Romans 11:36, Paul writes, "For from Him and through [dia] Him and to Him are all things." Here, dia is used for God’s agency in creation, clearly not implying inferiority. " - but here, its being used as the source not as for the channel of an act.
"The Greek phrase choris autou ("without Him") is an absolute negation, leaving no room for exceptions." - We have similar instances elsewhere.. adn again I dont beleive Christ is like teh rest of creation - To me is both "created" and "uncreated" (Philo's concept) not made from nothing but made from Gods wn "substance" i.e Like Eve was made from Adam
(Begotten essentially - without brothers or sisters, stilll wouldnt make him God tho)
"However, the implication of your argument—that creation is attributed solely to the Father" - t does, The Father is thought of as the Creator (to the cited churh fathers, which you ignore.)
To Daniel Wallace who says:
see GGBTB page 434 (John 1:3)
and here: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Greek_Grammar_Beyond_the_Basics/XlqoTVsk2wcC?hl=en&gbpv=1
and A.T Robertson here:
" (δι' αυτου). By means of him as the intermediate agent in the work of creation. The Logos is John's explanation of the creation of the universe. The author of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:2) names God's Son as the one "through whom he made the ages." Paul pointedly asserts that "the all things were created in him" (Christ) and "the all things stand created through him and unto him" (Colossians 1:16). Hence it is not a peculiar doctrine that John here enunciates. In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul distinguishes between the Father as the primary source (εξ ου) of the all things and the Son as the intermediate agent as here (δι' ου)."
(https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-1.html)
: "As the intermediate and sustaining agent. He had already used εν αυτω (in him) as the sphere of activity."
(https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/colossians-1.html)
you misrepresent both of these citations
" it would be prudent to frame your questions carefully, distinguishing between his linguistic analysis and his personal theological views." - I have literally linked to your claims on the subject and asked him if he would agree with your statements about his claims of being "Divine" and your clarification on what that means (synonym for deity)..
If not - you lied. and I will expose you for it. in a seperate post.
yes Beduhn did agree that "theos" was qualiative but what else did he say on thsi Subject? you are omitting information to suit YOUR agenda.
He also talks about "theos" being a catergory. Before and after his "basic agreement" with Harner.
"BeDuhn does not endorse a polytheistic/henotheistic interpretation" - You are being so selective on this: https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Truth_in_Translation/if2ACgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
have you actaully read Beduhns book? I doubt it.
"John 10:30’s statement, "I and the Father are one," uses the neuter hen to express unity in essence, not merely cooperative action. " - But they were not the same "essense" (your meaning) at this time, were they? Jesus was both God and Man
God was only a spirit. (count noun NOT mass noun.)
"However, his prior work already suggests that his preferred translation, "divine," is open to interpretation and does not necessarily support Jehovah’s Witness theology. Even if BeDuhn is non-Trinitarian" - it invalidates your claim he means your trinitarian "divine" sense.
"Stripping these texts of their theological context results in incomplete interpretations." - Im happy to do this with anyone, except a theologically motivated troll who has 0 crediibility
"which is inconsistent with Jehovah’s Witness theology that restricts worship to the Father." - John 4:24
"The angel quoting "Alpha and Omega" does not attribute this title to itself but conveys the words of Christ, as seen in the consistent use of the title for God or Jesus in Revelation (1:8, 21:6, 22:13)." - contexts indicate how these terms are meant. One is for God, onse is for teh one who died.
When did I say it did?
you say I misunderstand alot, can you read?
What did I say... repeat it back to me..
"its predicate-less structure conveys eternal existence." - there is also such a thing as an implied predicate as the NIV shows
"The predicate-less ego eimi is a deliberate echo of the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14" - prove it, the LXX evidence would say otherwise.
" However, this question does not diminish Jesus’ declaration but reflects their ongoing confusion and rejection of His claims." - Or another possibility is they didnt understand "ego eimi" as a divine name at all.. Why would they at first ask who are you?
but in the very next instance understand it as a quote from Ex 3:14?
claiming to have lived long enough to see Abraham would have been quite enough to provoke the crowds violent reaction.
""The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."" - because he was given it.
"The phrase ego eimi in John 8:58 carries the same theological resonance as ho on" - then we would expect the LXX to repeat the entirety of God's [claimed] name - not just the later.
" In John 5:18, the Jews accuse Jesus of "making Himself equal with God," showing that this title was understood as a divine claim. " - so to them God was someone else. as they only accused him of equality with God, NOT being God.
"Finally, your claim of double standards regarding explicit passages misunderstands the nature of biblical revelation. Trinitarian doctrine emerges from the cumulative evidence of Scripture, not isolated proof texts. When asking for explicit passages from Jehovah’s Witnesses, the request addresses their specific claims, such as Jesus being Michael the Archangel" - I can use the same argument... this is an excuse not a valid reason.
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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
according to you, Im confused alot... choke on this AQ: I DO NOT CARE FOR YOUR TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY!
if you want to discuss linguistics, cool - I'm happy to, if you can answer with a reasonable length post cool I'm happy to engage. If you can actually cite sources when requested, even better.
"This metaphorical use is standard in biblical language and does not conflict with monotheism." - so calling something "a god" is NOT polytheism then.. or henotheism (both of which you stretch the definition of)
again if I believed in the trinity, I would understand the NWT to be saying "a divine person"
"The critique that I rely on Wikipedia is misplaced," - When did I say YOU, rely on Wikipedia - quote please.
"Your insistence on citations is valid" - so provide them. Iv asked for 4 in my last 2 posts - if its valid - provide them
" but dismissing arguments solely due to their perceived association with Wikipedia reflects a lack of engagement with their substance." - You can use Wikipedia all you want, until you publish an academic paper. idc
I dismiss wikipedia on alot of issues unless other sources agree with it - this is not solely directed at you, its a blanket "policy" of mine.
"The phrase "without Him" categorically excludes the possibility of the Logos being merely a passive instrument, or a created being himself." - Do you know what a "passive instrument" is? and no it doesnt.. There is an idiom that speaks in absolutes around the time the bible was written.
"Rendering it as “a god” imposes a theological bias, introducing a polytheistic-henotheistic nuance incompatible with the monotheistic framework of John’s Gospel." - and yet here you are proving my point you CANNOT do strictly linguistically arguments, My question was around STRICT linguistics, not Johns theology or yours (Are all Catholics as obnouxious as you?)
" While dia can indicate agency, it does not imply inferiority or dependence." - cite the exception..
"the Father is the source, the Son is the agent, and the Spirit is the perfecting force. " - So the Son is not the "creator" - The trinity as a whole is.
So instead of being misleading clear your language further, and Why does Tertullian not call the son the creator? Or Origen or Justin Martyr?
"The claim that Isa. 44:24 excludes the Son from creation is based on a misinterpretation of the text." - Where did I say it excludes the son - Where?
"Christ’s unity with the Father, as described in John 10:30 ("I and the Father are one"), refers to their shared divine essence, not merely cooperative action." - Where does it say that in John chapter 10, explicitly?
Church fathers use "essence" to also mean SOLELY union
"The claim that the angel in Rev. 22:13 speaks as "Alpha and Omega" misrepresents the text. The angel does not use this title for itself but conveys the words of God." - can you read.. it seems you cant
I said:
"Angels quote God almost verbatum most of the time.
note the Angel in Revelation says "I am the alpha and the omega"(1st person) while quoting what God said for it to tell John."
again do you read?
How can I be any more clearer?
"The argument that ego eimi could mean “I have been” ignores the theological implications of Jesus’ statement and the broader Johannine context." - nope, just yours..
"Comparisons to modern definitions of "divine," as suggested by your reference to a Google search, lack the necessary theological precision to engage with this discussion. " - yet you insist the modern meaning for "worship" must be applied to Christ. interesting double standard.
"Your argument conflates BeDuhn’s linguistic analysis with theological conclusions that he does not explicitly endorse." - I asked: Have you ever asked Beduhn what he meant by "divine"? No? so you cant impose YOUR meaning on Beduhns words - he likely means any dictionary definition - not your trinitarian definition.
"your claim that BeDuhn’s non-Trinitarian stance necessarily colors his interpretation of "divine" as something other than the full divinity of the Logos is speculative." - Shall I just email him and ask him then? I guarantee he does not mean the trinitarian sense - he is not a trinitarian for starters..
"The claim that the Greek present tense conveys timeless or continuous existence is not a baseless assertion." - sure Mr. quote miner sure.
"John 8:58 goes beyond mere continuity, implying eternality, as the predicate-less ego eimi conveys existence unbounded by time" - it does not, it simply states he existed sometime before Abraham, which is not specifically stated - and is going on up to now.
Eternal existance could be said another way.
The idea that "ego eimi" is parroting God in exodus is stupid, Even the LXX acknowledges that "the being" (Which would indicate eternal existence in that context)
The lXX in the very next sentence when God tells Moses to "parrot" him emphasizes " ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με πρὸς ὑμᾶς"
NOT "I am" indicating "I am" wasn't the important part of the sentence.
"Your assertion that claiming Jesus' deity in John 8:58 is "opinion, not fact" fails to account for the Gospel's broader context." - I'm failing account for what you want me to account for... not this pre-conceived context you have in your head.
"This theological significance is why the Jews reacted with an attempt to stone Him—an act reserved for perceived blasphemy." - yes "perceived"
and why they asked "Who are you?"? straight after "I am"
Quote for the NIV -"[ ]" is used to highlight anything not in the original Greek or could not be understood from the original Greek ("He" is implied - LIKE Bible PRINCIPLES)That is why I told you that you would die in your sins. For unless you believe that I am* [He], you will die in your sins.”
25“Who are You?” they asked.
* Greek (8:24):
εἶπον οὖν ὑμῖν ὅτι ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν· ἐὰν γὰρ μὴ πιστεύσητε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι, ἀποθανεῖσθε ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ὑμῶν."The choice of ego eimi rather than a past tense verb like ēmēn (“I was”) " - If Jesus used a past tense verb, the idoim wouldnt work and would imply, most likely, that the "event" before Abraham, had finished
"The argument that “Son of God” does not imply deity is inconsistent with Jewish understanding. In first-century Jewish thought, claiming to be the "Son of God" often implied equality with God, as seen in John 5:18." - equality with God and being God are 2 totally seperate things in Jewish thought
" they never claimed intrinsic authority to forgive sins" - are you sure about that? One of the Prophets infact did.
"Lastly, your claim that Catholic interpretations are selective or lack credibility " - I claimed yours, not Catholics in general - Catholics I speak too don't troll on the internet and comment under insulting usernames.. They have honour and credibility - you don't
"The interpretation of John 8:58 as a declaration of deity is not a modern invention but has been affirmed by Church Fathers like Augustine and Athanasius, as well as ecumenical councils like Nicaea and Chalcedon. " - these mean literally nothing to me.. I couldn't care less, what Atha has to say on any subject.
"Your insistence on explicit passages ignores the nature of biblical revelation, which often conveys truths through cumulative and interconnected evidence. " - LOL, so why do you ask The Witnesses for just one explicit passage or myself?
you have double standards.
-
14
The Greeks had a word for it, but the Watchtower didn't
by Nathan Natas ini recall as though it was only 60 years ago, sitting in the kingdom hall on those horrible chairs, learning of the four forms of love: agape, philia, storge and eros.. the watchtower never mentioned pragma.. pragma: this is a committed, compassionate love that often grows as two partners continue to cherish and care for each other.
this type of love is associated with being together for a long time.
in some cases, the passion of eros can grow into pragma over time, this forging a lasting bond.. i think i know why; the watchtower isn't into committed, compassionate, cherishing and caring, are they?.
-
-
Blotty
I believe most of the Watchtowers references to the different forms of "love" is itself to Barclays Book - Who also I don't think references this particular word (I may be wrong.)
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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
Someone either is using A.I to "expand" their answers (The hint is in the "soul" of the message, or tather absense of one) or has WAY to much free time and should probably find something more construtive to do than "bully" Jw's online... (I know you are banned from certain blogs... for your type of behaviour)
". As for accusations of using insulting usernames or other online conduct, such claims are irrelevant to the present discussion and do not invalidate the content of my arguments. " - they hurt your credibility and you the one always talking about "respectful dialogue"
What about you? Where's yours?
So choke on this question: How are you not being a hypocrite, when in the last year - you yourself have done have engaged in disrespectful dialogue with others (notably Witnesses) But "encourage" me to be respectful to you?
Why should I?
"While Psalm 82 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 use "gods" to refer metaphorically to human judges or Satan's authority," - so you claim.. and keep claiming, yet you havent provided ay credible sources for this..
Hippolytus and Origen contridict you.
"The dismissal of Wikipedia’s utility entirely is unnecessary if the citations are accurate and well-supported by scholarly references." - What did I ask for? citation please.
Why don't you just provide them on request when i ask, like you claimed you would...
almost like your just a theologically motivated troll, here to be annoying more than anything
Maybe you should try Googling stuff occasionally, teh first page When I googled this is all filled with "Wikipedia is not an accurate source of information for academic papers"
"My point was that dismissing an argument solely because it references Wikipedia, without engaging the argument's substance, is an ad hominem tactic rather than substantive critique." - you act like a brick wall, pointless
Even if I do, you still dont concede or engage with my arguments rather just say "nope your wrong"
definition to a brickwall, its better to go and talk to one of those infact.
"The critique against rendering theos in John 1:1 as "God" rather than "a god" reflects a misunderstanding of Greek grammar" - so even on a strictly lingustical ground you say "a god" is wrong?
(who am i kidding, your theologically motivated, you cant do strict linguistics)
"John 1:3, where the Logos is identified as the Creator of "all things."" - that only says what the God he was with did through him.. not what he hinself initiated (Like the other examples in the OT of God doing stuff "alone" or others)
"The Greek term dia (through) in John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, and Hebrews 1:2 emphasizes the Logos’s active role in creation, not as a subordinate intermediary but as the divine Word through whom all things exist." - but is he the creator? according to Origen, no he is not.
Origen knows Greek better than you do (and is far more honest)
" not as a subordinate intermediary" - define what you mean, because this and agent mean the same thing.. an agent is subordinate in some sense.
" intermediary" is a synonym to agent - they both by definition are "in the middle" or "in-between 2 things, acting for one or both sides."
(Lets see if you can answer this like a normal person and not a troll)
" This aligns with the Old Testament declaration in Isaiah 44:24 that Yahweh alone created the heavens and the earth." - Tettulian interprets the Father saying this, not the trinity.
Tetullian believes the Father is thw creator, while calling the son "divine" I dont think ever goes so far to call him explicitly creator. (He knows better)
"The claim that Jesus is not explicitly called "Creator"" - one explicit passage wouldnt hurt, as you expect from the Witnesses, why are you the only exemption to your own rule?
"working in unity with the Father " - Do we not work in unity with The Father, Do not the angels work in unity with The Father?
We preach what Christ told us too. (Christ prayed we would be "one" with him and the Father)
Angels quote God almost verbatum most of the time.
note the Angel in Revelation says "I am the alpha and the omega"(1st person) while quoting what God said for it to tell John.
"Scholars like Jason BeDuhn, while sympathetic to some aspects of the NWT, critique its rendering of texts like John 1:1c, preferring "divine" as a more accurate translation." - What does Beduhn mean by "Divine"you ever asked him? (I doubt it, you didnt like scholars just on a year ago)
ever ask Goodspeed or Moffat what they mean by "Divine"
probably the same as Origen when he calls angels "divine"
(Beduhn is not a trinitarian so is unlikely to mean the trinitarian "Divine")
He likely means the first meaning that comes up when you google "Divine meaning"
"the present tense in Greek often conveys timeless or continuous existence" - cite all instances. I know of only one where this claim is made.
"this statement is a direct claim to deity." - Opinion, not fact. - your good at presenting opinions as fact, ill give you that.
"While ego eimi can indeed appear in ordinary contexts, its usage in John 8:58 stands out because it is coupled with a temporal clause referring to a time before Abraham's existence. " - you mean like in John 14:9 and others in the LXX to denote something that started in the past, and is continueing in the present?
"Throughout the Gospel of John, the Jewish leaders repeatedly accuse Jesus of blasphemy and equating Himself with God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). In John 8:58-59, their response to His declaration directly follows His claim, indicating they understood it as a claim to divine identity. This reaction highlights the gravity of Jesus’ words and supports the interpretation that He was asserting His divinity." - Tell this one to Harris and other scholars.. some would disagree completely (I reference only trinitarian scholsrs)
" The “I am” statements (ego eimi) throughout the Gospel, particularly without predicates, further reinforce this theme." - I suppose the only exception is where Jesus says "I am" and then is instantly asked "Who are you?"
and when Jesus says his Father is teh Jews "God"
"The critique of the NWT for rendering ego eimi as “I have been” reflects the theological bias of the JWs rather than linguistic accuracy." - more like your theological hate for teh JW.. Wonderment does a way better job convincing me of anything than you do.. because he is
A) not hypocritical
B) not selective (one google serach normally is enough to prove you either incorrect or atlest being selective)
"Even if He used a Semitic phrase equivalent to ego eimi, the Evangelist John chose to convey this in Greek using the present tense ego eimi" - or had little other choice - because you know: translation
The other options you provide are no doubt red herrings as your other "suggestions" are.. you didnt reserach their common usages before make that point did you?
Because I have done teh digging - these are all red herrings, as in common usage they meant something different, to waht you are trying to make out as fact. (defintion to a liar)
"The broader argument that Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God in the Gospels and was only understood as the Messiah or Son of God by His contemporaries is inconsistent with the evidence. " - Read Matthew.. "Son of God" doesnt mean "God". as is evident with a sinbgle lexicon reference for this idiom.
(Whihc im guessing you ignore - ignorance is bliss right?)
"Jesus’ identification with divine prerogatives, His forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:5-12), His authority over the Law (Matthew 5:21-48), and His acceptance of worship (John 20:28) all point to His divine identity. " - except for the last, all things Old Testament instances could be cited for, but there is little point because you come up with the stupidest (yes this is done on purpose) excues as to why not.
"a clear reference to Daniel 7:13-14, a vision of divine authority." - prime example of selective citations, you gonna provide teh rest of the information to our audience or am I? and make you look a fool.
as for your Origen reference, I will Just cite 1 chron 29:20 and your explanation because that works here aswell.
and why didnt you just cite this in the first place? you know Im never going to believe you as long as more trustworthy people say otherwise right
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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
"not ad hominem attacks." - you mean not like yours in other places online? under insulting usernames..
" while it is true that Wikipedia is not a primary academic source, referencing it in a broader discussion is not inherently invalid"
- you cite the source from Wikipedia - NO respected academic article cites a wikipedia page..
cite the exception.
I have read many academic articles in my time, NONE have ever cited Wikipedia.
Even Stafford who cites 2 sources from Wikipedia DOES NOT cite the wikipedia article. According to academics Iv spoken to you are WRONG!
What are we to do with Tetullians statment about Idol makers
just before that statement if it is not just directed at false gods?
Allins claims have been addressed with evidence... not hard to find.
The man is totally dishonest in other areas as well - not hard to find with a quick bit of research..
". Many scholars, both Trinitarian and otherwise, have raised concerns about the NWT’s theological bias" - Citation of the "otherwise"?
" even as He is one with His Son." - you omit to mention what gender the "One" is here, neuter or masculine, makes a BIG difference
"leaving no room for any secondary agents—whether false gods, angels, or any other beings. " - Opinion, not fact - moving on.
There are other examples in the OT where God explicitly declares he did something "alone"
"Tertullian explicitly denied that the Son was a subordinate or separate being. " -
where? and he explicitly stated that this statement only includes false gods (Which would include rival gods)...
"Jesus, as the Logos, was the direct agent of creation, fully sharing in the divine essence."
- you know what "agent" means right? - YHWH is not the agent of creation... he was/ is the creator.
see here: https://www.google.com/search?q=agent+meaning&oq=agent+meaning&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDE1MTJqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
(I genuinely think you don't know what "agent" means - an "agent" is generally subordinate in some sense)
It doesn't mean "creator" it means something other than the original designer
- this wasnt strictly out of the realms of interpretation as there are other sources that state similar.
"For example, Origen explicitly states in Contra Celsum (Book 8, Chapter 12) that the Logos is worshiped along with the Father, reflecting his belief in the Logos’s full divinity."
- proper citation? yes what did Origen say tho? I don't want an opinion from you - Mr quote mining accuser who then quote mines himself - full citation please.
"However, the New Testament's consistent portrayal of Jesus as Creator (John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:10) "
- Where is Jesus explicitly called "creator"?
Where is the Father explicitly called "creator"?
One is possible to answer, the other one is not.
"Your critique of traditional Trinitarian scholarship as inherently biased fails to account for the rigorous academic standards applied in such studies. "
- by only trinitarians, cite the exception if you can.
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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
"Consensus"
AQ should read this study (I will ask him questions later to see if he actaully does read it - because I know he never read Dixons study when he claimed he did): https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/opth-2020-0158/html?lang=en&srsltid=AfmBOooA1zuCCbwwxGECXzL2yPSMLbpWE5D5KwkUJC9--IuM_ySHGRmS
Aq if you said anything in responce to me trying to seperate those called "gods" from Christ - you are BSing everyone here.
You have all these citations in this study to deal with and others I can/ will cite..
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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.
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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
-
405
Is Jesus the Creator?
by Sea Breeze inthat'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)