Posts by Blotty

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

Blotty

"our claim that Justin merely meant “a god” in Ex.7:1/Ps.83-sense by using allos theos (another god) is another misreading." - " merely meant “a god” in Ex.7:1/Ps.83" bro is so theologically motvated he thinks I mean something completely different

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

Blotty

peacefulpete:
"The problem is you assume it was supposed to be simple. The Jews had very sophisticated conceptions of deity."

Not really, a 5 year old could comprehend what the thought of deity was to them.. its not really that hard..

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

Blotty

"The pre-Nicene Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian—all writing well before Nicaea—frequently refer to Jesus as God, Lord, and Creator. " - Where? Where does Tetullian or Justin Martyr call Christ explicitly "creator"

How do you know they mean "God" and not "a god"? Justin Martyr says "allon theon" which can only mean "another god"
Who is NOT the maker of all things [Justin: "BESIDES the Maker of all things"]

I can list where they Both (actually all except one) explicitly call him "Wisdom" But not "creator"

"To claim that “you really don’t get simpler than that” is a rhetorical sleight of hand that appeals to a surface-level literalism rather than a theological synthesis of the whole of Scripture." - or its you being dishonest as always, Which we all know you are...

"surface-level literalism" - you mean like you selectively do, trying to say israel isn't a nation?

Christ is seperated from "the only true God" in this instance and ironically never called such anywhere in the NT..

If Jesus is comparing his Father to false Gods... where are they in the context of this prayer? and why not include the other 2 "members" of the "only true God"?

you should read Eusabus before and after Nicaea - you are so deluded its unreal.

I have and Hart has a point... there was a change in rhetoric (probably to avoid being declared a "heretic" because you know that equalled death - something you omit to mention when no one (apparently) pushes back against a common belief.)

anyway - you are not worth answering, So I wont engage further unless you can respect others.

10

The Apostles Creed vs. Watchtower

by Sea Breeze in

the apostles creed could be recited in less than a minute in latin.

it was like an ancient youtube video clip: christianity in less than a minute.

it is very ancient, reaching back to the 200's.

Blotty

Where do JW's say either of these things Vanderhoven and Seabreeze?

I ask this because the simplest of research shows you both to be wrong.

18

Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al

by Terry in

jw
friends

to dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.

i tasked a.i.

with a pro vs con proposition.

Blotty

Sorry where did I say the US didn't blow up the pipeline? all I said was I wouldn't put it past Putin/ Russia to blow up said Pipeline.. as that is a motiivation that wasnt considered.

My bit in brackets referred to another element of Slims message which maybe I didn't highlight clearly

Liam:

You say I know nothing about Geopolitics - My aim was to present another viewpoint, I DO NOT CARE for politics, so no your right I know very little , but I have done my research.

btw I work with the general public - the crap they come out with is hilarious, yes they are stupid.. People will believe anything..

Its amazing how selective you were when quoting my statements... omitting important elements such as "I take with a pinch of salt" - and yes a simple google search proves Trump to be lieing alot of the time.. he tells some truth but not alot (The US governments OWN website proves him to be lieing.)

or did you notice my end text? I really don't care for politics generally. My personal opinion is it has become nasty, my way and your way is wrong, attacky derogitory BS, stuff id rather not get involved in, your response is the perfect example as to why I dont get involved. (not solely tho, I have other personal reasons of why I don't,)

Slim: "that makes you conclude the United States would draw the line at blowing up a Russian pipeline?" - I don't think they would draw the line there.. I think they likely did do it - My statement was simply meant to bring forth another position that I could also believe if the evidence presented itself.

To my knowledge: We cannot confirm 100% who actually did it. (I may be wrong.)
my bracketed comment was directed at something else, but not clearly marked, but that's besides the point, I will address that at some other point.

(This should be another topic of debate in email.)

"You don't have the slightest idea who pulls the strings on google" - educate me... then Ill fact check you & don't tell me its "the woke left"

"X" is so right wing its not even funny.

asking Grok about my "theory":
""Putin has proved he’s smart" is subjective—he’s outmanoeuvred foes before, but this isn’t proven here. "Wouldn’t put it past him" fits his reputation but lacks specifics. The pipeline motive makes sense as a chess move, yet it’s unverified. Without concrete data—like who planted the explosives—it’s a compelling hypothesis, not a fact."

I AM NOT saying I'm correct, I'm simply adding another viewpoint in.

18

Using GROK 3 (Artificial Intelligence) to fact check UKRAINE theories/conspiracies, et al

by Terry in

jw
friends

to dig deep into what has taken place in ukraine both pro and con.

i tasked a.i.

with a pro vs con proposition.

Blotty

Call me nuts - over half the stuff I hear about the Ukraine war or vaccines or what comes out of trumps mouth, I take with a pinch of salt..

Take a look on "X" for example.. the owner (Elon Musk) lies every second sentence and can be fact checked with a single google search on the subject.. and the public believe it.. tho one google search can give a reputable source that says the opposite.

Its actually concerning how stupid the general public is..

Putin has proved he is a very smart man - I wouldn't put it past him to blow up the pipeline to get the suspicion onto the west, because it doesn't "benefit" him, actually it does, It makes Russia look like the victim.. according to Putin Russia is the victim - something ChatGPT hasn't considered...
I think both sides have done wrong... But lets not forget who walked into where.

(sorry Slim - I 100% disagree with you in this case.)

Footnote: I have no political siding - I agree with the right and the left and think they both have merits and major flaws.. funny how politicians can never think of a middle solution tho.. its not hard.

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

you didnt really answer the question AQ... The question was regarding exceptions, not what affirms trinitarian theology (Which no body here really cares about)

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

"and I also looked up what he wrote in other places," - sure, why should I take your word on this? you are already known to quote mine.. twice infact.

But it should be noted "a god" and "a divine being" clearly don't mean the same thing to Hart as he lists them separately.

"and it is clear that Hart explicitly negates the way JWs read and understand the NWT rendering" - how can he "negate" it when he states its a possible rendering? you still haven't answered this

the rest is the usual - the longer your messages the more on the ropes you are AQ. your making stuff up as you go - because Hart doesn't suit your agenda. Its so clear to anyone wo can read basic English

You make some wild accusations to your second post - that no one has ever claimed, they seem to be invented by you.. as a quick bit of research will show Constantine wanted a united statement of faith.. Before Nicea, Councils as "authority" were unknown in scriptural matters (paraphrase of Hart)

You don't even listen to Hart when he talks.

Hart even compares Johns Logos with Philos, something you also reject outright.,

"Your quote is also a mere historical observation about the diversity of early Christian theology ("what many [not everyone, not even the majority] consider to be orthodox Christianity")" - not what Hart said explicitly in the interview, he said quite the opposite.. again why should I believe you over the man talking?

"Thomas’s declaration is merely an exclamation or honorific, as it directly addresses Jesus:

The phrase εἶπεν αὐτῷ (“he said to him”, not not "to them", not one for Christ, the other for some kind of "Jehovah") confirms that Thomas is speaking only to one person, to Christ, not the Father.
The possessive pronoun μου (“my”) emphasizes Thomas’s personal recognition of Jesus as both Lord and God.

" - Hart would disagree, according to him it could go either way. it may be or may not be.. He doesn't have a definite answer, and doesn't go as far as saying yes this is a definite proof text of Christs being God - again this man goes on evidence, you go by theological motivation.

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

" 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

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

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.