Posts by Blotty

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Blotty

you'll have to do better than that AQ to convince me... need more evidence? I have loads more where that came from.. you seem to be doing the old dictator tactic atm, repeat the same things over and over until it sinks into other peoples heads... too bad for you the original scrolls still exist huh..

Even your appeal to psalms 89:27 does not work - for one big reason: David was still a king! part of the group he was "Firstborn" of
The Firstborn of the kings of the earth or in other words the "highest"!
So no my examples are not "irrelevant" as though David does have pre-eminence over the kings of the earth - he is still a king!

"The appeal to “firstborn of death” or “firstborn of the poor” in the LXX is contextually irrelevant, as these are idioms and poetic expressions, not technical terms for ontology." - don't need to be technical terms for ontology - Just proves my point that ALL called "Firstborn" are part of the group they are firstborn of.

"Justin’s description of souls or the cosmos as “begotten” borrows the Platonic idiom of generated realities but carefully distinguishes the Logos as the one through whom those generated realities come to be."

- however Justin uses "begotten" in the sense of coming into existence.. something you deny had that meaning at that time... really, you sure about that.

" yet he is equally clear that the Son is begotten “before every aeon” and is therefore eternal" - eternity works two ways AQ, which direction did he mean?

"if Scripture had wished to call the Son “first-created,” it possessed the unambiguous adjective πρωτόκτιστος but instead chooses πρωτότοκος, a title of primacy and inheritance. " - if they had wished to call the Son "God" explicitly they could have done this also.. unambiguously..
If they wished to define 3 persons in God, they could have done this also.. Paul does similar with "members" of the "body" - it wasnt out of Pauls linguistical range & Paul was well smart enough to describe God in this way if he wanted too..
& Clement does explicitly call Wisdom (Who he identifies as Christ) "First-created"
+ the distinction between "Firstborn" and "First-created" did not exist in the time of the apostles and came about later.. So why would they honor a distinction later invented to support the trinity? that they had no knowledge of. Better question: How could they honor a distinction they had no knowledge of?
When the earliest recorded usage of "First-created" was in the time of Clement.. after the apostle died out..
If no such distinction exists between 2 words, one will always become more dominantly used... that is a harsh fact, we have many parallels in the English language.
Gay & Happy is just one example - Gay took on a new meaning yes, but even when Gay was used for such a meaning it had priority over happy to a large extent.
[from memory: older books from when I was a kid almost exclusively use it as such, along with other terms that are not "happy".]

limiting the scopes of evidence to the NT and Nicea is a self-serving purpose, please cite one other credible source that does this.. your methods are not scientific or for open & honest research, they are to fulfil a fantasy of yours

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Blotty

Its also interesting that even the LXX translates "Firstborn of the Poor" & "Firstborn of Death" as ones of their respective groups i.e the poorest
& the most deadly or mostly likely to cause death.

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Blotty

"Even if there is one, What does the personification of wisdom have to do with anything?"

essentially Proverbs 8:25 uses the word "beget" in the LXX (The Hebrew word is translated as "beget" once elsewhere I believe, I think in Deut 32 4 or 18, I may be wrong.)

Church fathers repeatedly identify Jesus as Wisdom

According to Jerome Origen's writings were full of references to Christ as a created being (before the Latin)
Tatian uses begot of the created world... so does Origen.
Justin martyr "uses" begotten as a word for being "brought into existence" (the soul).

[person]: But if the world is begotten, souls also are necessarily begotten; and perhaps at one time they were not in existence...'

Justin: "'This seems to be correct.'

[condensed for space purposes - reverse google search for the rest]

AQ:
you trying limit this to second temple Judaism and Nicea shows you to not be a credible source of info as no actual credible source does this...
This is a tactic of yours to shove crap down our throats..

65

Acts 20: 28 Corruption in the NWT

by Sea Breeze in

here's how this verse should read: .

take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of god, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

- kjvhere's how it reads in the nwt: pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of god, which he purchased with the blood of his own son.. here is how it reads in the kjv with the greek keyed to strong's: take heedg4337 thereforeg3767 unto yourselves,g1438 andg2532 to allg3956 theg3588 flock,g4168 overg1722 the whichg3739 theg3588 holyg40 ghostg4151 hath madeg5087 youg5209 overseers,g1985 to feedg4165 theg3588 churchg1577 of god,g2316 whichg3739 he hath purchasedg4046 withg1223 his owng2398 blood.g129 .

Blotty

Lets see if AQ can read that last line... specifically "it remains unlikely"

AQ needs to learn twisting words of actual experts, who are more credible than himself (hence I rely on them in debates with him, they are not infallible - just more credible & reasonable to talk too, even JW are more easy to talk too) wont help him... We know what MULTIPLE credible sources have said.. David Bentley Hart, Harris, Barclay (Hebrews 1:8) etc in their proper context have conceded the JW position is/ may be feasible!

AQ just cant stand that, because it destroys his trinitarian fantasy and his urge to be like Athanasius.. writing screeds and screeds relying on the argument "[insert text] was not written, instead it says [insert text]"
However unfortunatly, no matter how many times he tries to shove it down my throat (and others) he wont succeed unless he can cite a single scripture in context that explicitly says "God is 3 persons"

From my reserach I have gleamed:
Begotten and created are synonyms - Logos is IDENTIFIED as Wisdom
proverbs 8's poetry style would force such a meaning.
NT doesnt have to say it (it does in its own way) trying to limit such things to the NT is limiting the scope of the argument & is not a wide example of word usage (No credible source ONLY uses the NT)

These 2 are synonyms as Strongs popints out: SYNONYMS: θεότης, θειότης
One just fell out of common usage

Homosious and homoisious Atha was prepared to accept the latter and uses the latter more commonly (despite AQ's claims)

Just 3 as an example, the rest of what AQ spouts is also trinitarian propaganda not backed by actaul facts.

66

Time of the end - a TRINITY puzzler.

by BoogerMan in

(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".

(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).

(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".

Blotty

"" the "fallacy of exact words" - Atha's whole argument hinged on "The bible did [insert text here] but rather says [insert other text here.]"

66

Time of the end - a TRINITY puzzler.

by BoogerMan in

(matthew 24:36) “concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the son, but only the father.".

(jesus seems to have forgotten to include the holy spirit not knowing either).

(acts 1:7) "he said to them: “it does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the father has placed in his own jurisdiction.".

Blotty

atleast AQ seems to have learnt how to engage on a human level rather than A.I

I don't agree with any of it (because its walls of garbage)

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

" Modern Greek lexicons, such as BDAG and the Concise Greek-English Lexicon, universally define antilytron as “ransom”—with no implication of exact equivalency." - kind of does... The OT implies as such... that Law didn't end until Jesus died.

*** w00 10/15 p. 30 Questions From Readers ***

The obligation to keep the Mosaic Law ended when the Messiah died.

see: Romans 10:4

Rom. 3:21-26

(1 Corinthians 15:45)

The first man Adam became a living person. The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.”

(Hebrews 4:15)

“. . .but we have one who has been tested in all respects as we have, but without sin. . .”

hence in 1 Timothy 2:6 "The man" and "men" are 2 distinct groups as Jesus was the only man at that time (living) "without sin"

1 Corinthians 15:20-22 - equivalence implication no #1

I'm not going to do a "verse battle" with you AQ because that's what you want - if people don't interact with you, you stop... when people interreact you AI text generate and lie.

Who was the Ransom paid to AQ according to scripture?

A non JW website answers this question: https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-pay-ransom.html

clearly it was paid to God... because God decided that it is how it must be. (God "lacking" something has nothing to do with it)

"a soul for a soul"

*** ad p. 1373 Ransom ***

Parkhurst’s A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (p. 47) says it means: “a ransom, price of redemption, or rather a correspondent ransom. ‘It properly signifies a price by which captives are redeemed from the enemy; and that kind of exchange in which the life of one is redeemed by the life of another.’ So Aristotle uses the verb antilytroo for redeeming life by life.”

Rolf Furoli on this subject: https://mybelovedreligion.no/2024/07/02/the-devaluation-and-restriction-of-the-ransom-sacrifice-i-jesus-died-for-all-adams-descendants/

(I agree with Rolf in almost everything he says... Rolf is a Christian and acts likes it, AQ does not.)

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

oh what a surprise more false lies coming from AQ.... a simple google search shows you to be wrong AQ... get a life dude (and some Christian integrity) and ditch the AI text generator

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..