Posts by Blotty

405

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

" Hart writes:

“Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

This explicitly rejects the JW interpretation of “a god” as a lesser divine being,"

Where? it says nothing of the sort... infact Hart here is talking about theios being rendered "a divine being"

How can he "explicitly reject" it, When he doesn't even explicitly say it

405

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

Another bit of proof is AQ's acknowledgement of cited sources, they are for the most part non-existent.

Most humans would atleast acknowledge a cited source, but AQ almost always discards them for "reasons" or seems to fail to read or watch them, seemingly ignoring that the source contradicts his view.
(Who are more credible than he is, aswell)

yet ANOTHER thing is: How can such similar posts be turning up all over the internet on sites that are not trinitarian? - I went to some really out of the way blog, when reseraching a subject and there was a post by an annoymous user regurgitating the exact same stuff almost verbatim that AQ has posted here.

see here: https://landandbible.blogspot.com/2019/12/my-lord-and-my-god-trinitarians-get-it.html

(see comments section)

this is one good example.. this blog you have to dig for.. it doesn't appear in the top 5 pages of Google search results for "John 20:28" (for me anyway, different countries get different results)
However even if this were true - this somewhat proves AQ is theologically motivated since why would you go and spam multiple different blogs with the same crap? NO claimed catholic I know does this. I have never seen anything of this scale (it is somewhat impressive) But I find quite concerning.

405

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

Yes Pete - I believe it is - I sent my results to Slim privately but will reveal if you reverse engineer AQ's answers and ask an AI (ChatGPT specifically) it will spout similar nonsense.

Try it yourself: ask Chatgpt if something AQ said is true, it should come back with a similar structure
and answer (granted it wont be identical, but it will be similar)
It is AI generated 100%

worlds fastest typer: https://www.academyoflearning.com/blog/the-fastest-typists-in-the-world-past-and-present/#:~:text=Who%20Is%20the%20Fastest%20Typist%20in%20the%20World?,WPM%E2%80%94over%20seven%20times%20faster!

I highly doubt AQ is even among the top 10 and would want valid proof if claimed.

405

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

You seem to forget you are not the only authority on the internet to explain other peoples beliefs (everyone is a trinitarian apparently - catholic trinitarian)
& that there are people who don't just seek to prove a trinity (Hart) and can do honest scholarship and base their beliefs on evidence (Hart)

- unlike yourself, you have proven yourself to be quite biased and not evidence based... rather theologically motivated and cant answer simple questions that are directed at you, you would rather go on theological rants "making" the same "points" over and over... why? no need - We aren't sheep, we don't have terrible memory's - trinitarian theology is NOT infallible.. We do get it, you rather don't take the time or effort to understand our different interpretations. (rather lump into category's that are irrelevant or just dismiss anything that doesn't suit your agenda - evidence or not.)

ironically on the wikipedia article for "henotheism" we have this interesting source:
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Canaan_and_Israel_in_Antiquity/2rnyjxLHy-QC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Anat-Yahu++Yahweh&pg=PA248&printsec=frontcover

(Which you will not doubt deny - but you have no credibility left, so Good luck with that)

405

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

Hart explicitly states:

“Some other scholars have chosen to render the inarticular form of theos as ‘a divine being,’ but this seems wrong to me on two counts: first, if that were all the evangelist were saying, he could have used the perfectly serviceable Greek word theios; and, second, the text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos, not merely some sort of association between ‘God proper’ and ‘a divine being.’”

- this is on the subject "a divine being" NOT "a god" - and theois is in this quote aswell, Where Hart gets this opinion. "a god" is not even mentioned in your quoted paragraph (see also Slims quote.)

"

he text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos.”

This is a clear rejection of the theological framework behind the NWT’s "a god."" - this is you reading into the text as he has explicitly said its a possible rendering and hasn't outright rejected it. unlike yourself who cant even admit its a possible rendering when I challenged you on it earlier in this very thread, you rather went on your normal theologically motivated rant. Hart is more credible to his own statements than your reinterpretation that doesnt suit your agenda..

"Hart states:

“The text clearly means to assert some kind of continuity of divinity between God the Father and the Logos.”

This continuity is incompatible with the Jehovah's Witnesses' henotheistic interpretation, which introduces a lesser deity (anathema to John’s monotheism)" - proof you haven't watched the video.. else you would know Harts position on this.

Funny how he doesn't say the angels being "gods" are "metaphorical" - they are NOT to be worshipped, but they are "gods"

By "lesser deity" Do you mean "lesser god"? or "competing god" the latter is henotheism the former is not (Monotheism to John is NOT your monotheism AQ - that is academic consensus)

"henotheistic interpretation" - your interpretation and placing things on other sects that is not entirely true.. everyone knows this except you.

"His acknowledgment of pre-Nicene diversity does not equate to affirming Arianism as “apostolic faith.” Instead, Hart recognizes the Council of Nicaea as a doctrinal clarification" - direct quote, he actually says quite the opposite to what your claiming.

"Hart critiques translations that fail to grasp the qualitative use of θεός" - Hart mentions nothing of "qualiative"

infact doing a quick scan, then running a quick "CTRL + F" search (to double check) shows the only one to mention the word is you (13/14 (times on page 36) the one exception being me, quoting you). there is no occurrence of that word in ANY of your quotes from Hart.

"He explicitly affirms the Logos’ continuity of divinity with the Father and its full revelation as ὁ θεός (ho theos) in John 20:28." - he also explicitly says -

"or it is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas). Even this startling profession, admittedly, left considerable room for argument in the early centuries as to whether the fully divine designation was something conferred upon Christ only after the resurrection"

I would put this statement down to you not being very honest or presenting evidence as a foregone conclusion (Which a lot of it is NOT, infact quite the opposite), while not being very accurate

(ironically: quote mining)

405

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

Slim - We should just start spreading that AQ believes Arianism tbh... because that is what he is doing to Hart.. Maybe then he will learn to not be so dishonest.

in fact if you can, contact Hart and link him to AQ's posts - I would love to see his response to these outlandish assertations of what he "believes" - Then AQ can publicly be outed as a fraud and a liar - and hopefully teach him a lesson on lying.

(I haven't yet found an email address for him - haven't had time to look)

AQ clearly hasn't watched the video as he literally said it could be rendered "a god" - explicitly.. But AQ doesn't like this, so doesn't dare watch the video.

How dishonest can one person be, simply reading what Hart says he says:

rather, we have to rely on orthography and typography, using the difference between an uppercase or lowercase g to indicate the distinction between God and [a] god.

Keyword is "rely" in this paragraph. - because we don't distinguish between the specific noun types.. AQ quote mining again.

AQ says: "Hart does not imply that the Logos is merely "a god" or a derivative divine agency. Instead, he emphasizes that the qualitative use of "θεός" signals the Logos' participation in the divine essence while maintaining a distinction from "God" as the Father."

Hart says:

"however, θεός (theos)... could be used of any divine being, however finite: a god or a derivative divine agency, say, or even a divinized mortal.”"

No he doesnt imply it - he EXPLICITLY states it, so your right he doesn't imply it, he 1 ups you.

We should also note AQ has cut some of this out - full quote please AQ

and you forgot this bit:
"God in his full transcendence is always ho theos; and the crucial importance of the difference between this and the inarticular theos is especially evident at 10:34–36. Most important of all, this distinction imbues the conclusion of the twentieth chapter with a remarkable theological significance, for it is there that Christ, now risen from the dead, is explicitly addressed as ho theos (by the apostle Thomas). Even this startling profession, admittedly, left considerable room for argument in the early centuries as to whether the fully divine designation was something conferred upon Christ only after the resurrection"

"Hart does not endorse the New World Translation’s “a god”, because they fail to recognize the theological context and nuance." - Where does he say this? quote him verbatim saying this exact thing. He literally says it CAN be rendered "a god"

No he does NOT endorse NWT specifically, but literally if your mind can comprehend the video Slimboyfat linked - he says "a god" IS A POSSILE RENDERING.

you forgot to BOLD this bit - AQ

"whereas I confine myself entirely to lowercase letters to indicate where the Greek speaks only of θεός (theos) without the article; but, to make the matter more confusing, I have indicated three uses of the word without article (vv. 6, 12, and 13), all concerning the relation between the divine and the created, in all small capitals, to indicate that it is not clear in these instances whether the distinction in forms is still operative, and whether the inarticular form of the noun is being used simply of God as related to creatures through his Logos. "

405

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

Hart: "you can see the change occurring in Eusebius, read him before the council on who Jesus is and read him after and there's been a change...."

[Watched this video before when Slim originally posted it, however now it seems I'm going to have to start quoting from it]

again there is NO evidence he means anything different to what's said - if I need to contact this guy t prove you wrong aswell, Im more than happy too.

405

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

"the assertion that Hart unequivocally sees Arius as representing the traditional view and Nicaea as an innovation misrepresents his position." - have you actually watched the video on this subject? again I would doubt you have.

Slimboys quote CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY says before Nicea. Arius was considered "Orthodox" Which is consistent with Jerome's statement on Origen's writings that were "full of references to Christ as a created being"

So No - it is you who misrepresent the evidence and further proof your statement on "respectful dialogue" is worth no more than the trash can I have sitting right next to me.

What Slimboy says Hart says is literally what Harts says (This is his opinion, based on evidence)... even acknowledging that John 1:1 COULD be rendered as "a god" and should not be understood polytheistically

SOMETHING you didn't mention and would have if you had watched the video... (see: 48 min mark - Chapter "Jesus")

you havent watched the video, you are a fraud

ANY person who watches the video will see Slim quoted Hart accurately and "to a T" - Hart even talks of "looking at the evidence" in the same context..

before you comment further AQ - watch the video or risk making yourself look worse than you already do.. to anybody who looks at the evidence literally in the video

405

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

So you are over ruling a dictionary? A dictionary which is more knowledgeable than a theologically motivated troll..

READ:
"of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause"

This dictionary is similar to EVERY dictionary and lexicon I have checked, Why are you more credible than these? (Not because they are only useful tools blah blah blah [AQW talk] - actual reason) Why should I believe you, a person who has 0 credibility and twists others words to suit your own agenda (Even Fosters, Who is a JW) - in what world would I trust you?

I bet even if Christ returned today and said he wasn't part of a trinity - you would still insist he is, somehow twisting what he said to suit your theological agenda.

(Obviously this hyperbole, but I think this illustrates that ANY other source that is NOT named "AQWSED" is better)

Did you read Wallace or A. T Robertson? I get the feeling you didn't (I wonder why) you cant access the page of Wallace's book on Google books that I cited - you seemingly don't have access to it, meaning you are parroting what others have said online rather than reading his book yourself.

Wallace's Book contradicts you - Christ is not the ultimate source ("creator")

and A.T Robertson says:

"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)"

"Your concession that dia in Hebrews 2:10 can describe the "channel" of creation aligns with my argument rather than refuting it." - no kidding sherlock, How did you figure that one out? Let me guess the word "concede" in my prev answer... seriously...

"The Logos is not a passive conduit or subordinate instrument but an active and integral participant in creation" - since when does being a passive instrument, mean not being an active part of creation?

Who denied Christ wasn't involved in creation? not me, Not JW (they use the same language you do)

"Finally, your appeal to "basic English grammar" as a rhetorical flourish does not address the substantive issues at hand." - well duh.. its not meant to address the argument, its meant as a rhetorical device to say: if you misunderstand the argument - go back to school, you clearly don't understand English idiom (which you don't, I use many you don't seem to understand - almost like an *autistic person, but act remarkably more unaware of your own actions.)

can you read? seemingly not because in my last post I said:

"[Ill get to the rest later.]"

Do you understand what this means? apparently not

* this is not an insult to autistic people ( rather a comparison AQ probably wont understand.)

405

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

Another thing AQ has distorted is the usage of "Dia"

"of one who is the author of the action as well as its instrument, or of the efficient cause: δἰ αὐτοῦ (i. e. τοῦ Θεοῦ) τά πάντα namely, ἐστιν or ἐγένετο, Romans 11:36; also δἰ οὗ, Hebrews 2:10; δἰ οὗ ἐκλήθητε"

It is ACKNOWLEDGED "dia" can mean "source" - you yourself have acknowledged this before! How you can sit here and say it now only means "channel" with a straight face is amusing to me

You need to keep your arguments consistent... I concede here and Hebrews 2:10 it means "source" or describe the Channel if the act creation "used" to come into existence

(if you dont understand that second one, seriously go back to primary school and learn basic English Grammar)

[Ill get to the rest later.]