"outside of time" argument

by Blotty 66 Replies latest watchtower bible

Blotty

This is going to be very brief but a user recently tried to argue an argument that has already been refuted many times - the logic is somewhat sound but falls apart when the definition to the word used it looked and its usages in the bible.

The word in question is "aionas" found in the scripture in question Hebrews 1:2
(https://biblehub.com/hebrews/1-2.htm#lexicon)

For starters look at the biblehub translations - do any of them state "outside of time" or that time was "created" in this moment - no because this seems to be heavily inspired by Greek philosophy rather than the bible itself.

note: I am not saying this word does not mean eternity or anything of the sort, I am saying this scripture some of the claims I dispute and can easily disprove, hence the argument is laughable.

Bill mounce defines the word as:
pr. a period of time of significant character; life; an era; an age: hence, a state of things marking an age or era; the present order of nature; the natural condition of man, the world; ὁ αἰών, illimitable duration, eternity; as also, οἱ αἰῶνες, ὁ αἰῶν τῶν αἰώνων, οἱ αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων; by an Aramaism οἱ αἰῶνες, the material universe, Heb. 1:2
commentaries on Biblehub say:
he made the worlds] Literally, “the aeons” or “ages.” This word “aeon” was used by the later Gnostics to describe the various “emanations” by which they tried at once to widen and to bridge over the chasm between the Human and the Divine. Over that imaginary chasm St John had thrown the one wide arch of the Incarnation when he wrote “the Word became flesh.” In the N.T. the word “aeons” never has this Gnostic meaning. In the singular the word means “an age;” in the plural it sometimes means “ages” like the Hebrew olamim. Here it is used in its Rabbinic and post-biblical sense of “the world” as in Hebrews 11:3, Wis 13:9, and as in 1 Timothy 1:17 where God is called “the king of the world” (comp. Tob 13:6). The word kosmos (Hebrews 10:5) means “the material world” in its order and beauty; the word aiones means the world as reflected in the mind of man and in the stream of his spiritual history; oikoumene (Hebrews 1:6) means “the inhabited world.”

Here τοὺς αἰῶνας is equivalent to "the worlds," as in the A.V. For though the primary meaning of αἰών has reference to time - limited in periods, or unlimited in eternity - it is used to denote also the whole system of things called into being by the Creator in time and through which alone we are able to conceive time. "Οἱ αἰῶνες, saecula, pro rerum creatarum universitate est Hebraismus" (Bull); cf. Hebrews 11:3, καταρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῤήματι Θεοῦ: also 1 Corinthians 2:7, πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων: and 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2, πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων. Hebrews 1:2
In the writer's thought heirship goes with creation. Christ is heir of what he made, and because he made it. As πάντων, in the preceding clause, regards all things taken singly, αἰῶνας regards them in cycles. Ἀιῶνας does not mean times, as if representing the Son as the creator of all time and times, but creation unfolded in time through successive aeons.
Additional Note on ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον eternal destruction, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (Vincent)
Ἁιών transliterated eon, is a period of time of longer or shorter duration, having a beginning and an end, and complete in itself. Aristotle (περὶ οὐρανοῦ, i. 9, 15) says: "The period which includes the whole time of each one's life is called the eon of each one." Hence it often means the life of a man, as in Homer, where one's life (αἰών) is said to leave him or to consume away (Il. v. 685; Od. v. 160). It is not, however, limited to human life; it signifies any period in the course of events, as the period or age before Christ; the period of the millennium; the mytho-logical period before the beginnings of history. The word has not "a stationary and mechanical value" (De Quincey). It does not mean a period of a fixed length for all cases. There are as many eons as entities, the respective durations of which are fixed by the normal conditions of the several entities. There is one eon of a human life, another of the life of a nation, another of a crow's life, another of an oak's life. The length of the eon depends on the subject to which it is attached.
It is sometimes translated world; world representing a period or a series of periods of time. See Matthew 12:32; Matthew 13:40, Matthew 13:49; Luke 1:70; 1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:6; Ephesians 1:21. Similarly οἱ αἰῶνες the worlds, the universe, the aggregate of the ages or periods, and their contents which are included in the duration of the world. 1 Corinthians 2:7; 1 Corinthians 10:11; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 11:3.
The word always carries the notion of time, and not of eternity. It always means a period of time. Otherwise it would be impossible to account for the plural, or for such qualifying expressions as this age, or the age to come. It does not mean something endless or everlasting. To deduce that meaning from its relation to ἀεί is absurd; for, apart from the fact that the meaning of a word is not definitely fixed by its derivation, ἀεί does not signify endless duration. When the writer of the Pastoral Epistles quotes the saying that the Cretans are always (ἀεί) liars (Titus 1:12), he surely does not mean that the Cretans will go on lying to all eternity. See also Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 4:11; 2 Corinthians 6:10; Hebrews 3:10; 1 Peter 3:15. Ἁεί means habitually or continually within the limit of the subject's life. In our colloquial dialect everlastingly is used in the same way. "The boy is everlastingly tormenting me to buy him a drum."
In the New Testament the history of the world is conceived as developed through a succession of eons. A series of such eons precedes the introduction of a new series inaugurated by the Christian dispensation, and the end of the world and the second coming of Christ are to mark the beginning of another series. See Ephesians 3:11. Paul contemplates eons before and after the Christian era. Ephesians 1:21; Ephesians 2:7; Ephesians 3:9, Ephesians 3:21; 1 Corinthians 10:11; comp. Hebrews 9:26. He includes the series of eons in one great eon, ὁ αἰὼν τῶν αἰώνων the eon of the eons (Ephesians 3:21); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews describes the throne of God as enduring unto the eon of the eons (Hebrews 1:8). The plural is also used, eons of the eons, signifying all the successive periods which make up the sum total of the ages collectively. Romans 16:27; Galatians 1:5; Philippians 4:20, etc. This plural phrase is applied by Paul to God only.
The adjective αἰώνιος in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective, in themselves, carry the sense of endless or everlasting. They may acquire that sense by their connotation, as, on the other hand, ἀΐ̀διος, which means everlasting, has its meaning limited to a given point of time in Jde 1:6. Ἁιώνιος means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time. Both the noun and the adjective are applied to limited periods. Thus the phrase εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, habitually rendered forever, is often used of duration which is limited in the very nature of the case. See, for a few out of many instances, lxx, Exodus 21:6; Exodus 29:9; Exodus 32:13; Joshua 14:9; 1 Samuel 8:13; Leviticus 25:46; Deuteronomy 15:17; 1 Chronicles 28:4. See also Matthew 21:19; John 13:8; 1 Corinthians 8:13. The same is true of αἰώνιος. Out of 150 instances in lxx, four-fifths imply limited duration. For a few instances see Genesis 48:4; Numbers 10:8; Numbers 15:15; Proverbs 22:28; Jonah 2:6; Habakkuk 3:6; Isaiah 61:8.

Even Greg Stafford in a footnote argues:
The dichotomy made by Trinitarians between “created” and “begotten” is
self-serving and intended to explain how in some sense Jesus can be God’s “Son” or
even “only-begotten” or “firstborn,” without being “created.” Though some distinction
can be made between these terms, ultimately what is meant is that the one begotten or
created is given life by another. Beyond this, however, the actual spiritual or heavenly
‘birth’ or creation process is beyond our experience, and so it is understandable only by
analogy. That is precisely why the Bible uses terms like “firstborn” and other birth or
creation terms that we can use in relating to the relationship between God and the
prehuman Jesus. Therefore, the use of such terms in describing Jesus’ relationship with
his Father strongly suggests some event took place which constituted the Logos “onlybegotten,”
“firstborn,” and God’s “Son,” and which resulted in the Father being “the
Father” and not “Son.” Bowman (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, page 83)
argues, “The Bible does not actually say that the prehuman Jesus was begotten by the
Father at some point in time.” But it does not say the Logos was begotten outside of
time either! The Bible teaches that the prehuman Jesus was ‘begotten’ or ‘created’
(according to Prov 8:22ff.), which is everywhere else understood in such relationships
to take place “in time”
slimboyfat

Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him.
Tertullian, Against Hermogenes 3
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0313.htm
aqwsed12345
"The dichotomy made by Trinitarians between “created” and “begotten”..."
This "dichotomy" is made by the Scriptures, not by "the Trinitarians", since the Bible never calls Christ a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis). The Bible claims that he created everything, without him nothing came into being that has become (Jn 1:3, Col 1:15-17). From all this it logically follows that he cannot belong to the created, the things that have become, so he cannot be the "first creature" either.
Does the New Testament say that the Son was begotten or born of the Father? Yes or no? Say the same of the creatures or not? Do you think it is a coincidence that the Holy Scriptures describe the origin of the Son from the Father, consistently with a different word it uses for the creatures?
- gennao, tikto <-> ktizo, poio
1. the NT exclusively describes the Son’s orgin from the Father by terms derived from ‘gennao’ and ‘tikto’, and openly states that that in the beginning He already was, even the aeons made through him
2. the NT exclusively describes the creation’s, and the creatures’ coming in the existence by terms derived from ‘ktizo’ and ‘poioi’
3. therefore there must be a significant difference in quality between these two
It's particularly amusing that one of the most important Watchtower doctrines which they are 'ad nauseam' parroting, namely "the Son is a creature", is NOWHERE explicitly stated in the Bible, although they amusingly claim that all their teachings are "clearly" in the Bible!
The fact that you simply label the concept that time itself is a created reality as "philosophy" (although the New Testament uses many terms used in Greek philosophy, and "aeon" is just such one also), which in WTS terminology has a pejorative meaning (I would rather call it common sense, logical conclusion), doesn't refute it. The Nicene Creed, originally written in Greek, does not use the English word "time" when it says that the Son was born from the Father before all "aeons". The concept of "aeon" naturally includes temporality itself, therefore, when there were no "aeons", there was no time. Or what do you claim? That time is not a created thing? That time has always existed? That time is eternal and has no beginning? Well, you've already undermined your own alleged theism, because for a theistic Christian, only God is not a created reality. The concept of "time" is, by the way, the measure of change. But in the Son, as God, there is no change: "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Hebrews 13:8)
They try to escape the obvious biblical difference between creation and begetting, and accuse the Trinitarians of a fallacy in argumentation, as if we're reading the Nicene definition into the biblical word. But what they primarily forget (probably deliberately out of necessity) is that regardless of Nicea, even before Nicea, this difference in usage between begetting (birth) and creation existed, so the Council itself relied on this when formulating this article of faith. But why should one think by default that the begotten is also a creature?
Once a WTS apologist argued to me that "God has neither male nor female reproductive organs, another person can only come from him in one way: through creation." As if God could only beget if he possessed real human reproductive organs! Yet we find it written that Jesus is the imprint of his essence (charaktēr tēs hypostaseōs autou), which means that Scripture not only expresses his origin from the Father with the analogy of begetting, but also with the metaphor of replication.
And again, John 3:6 states, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Therefore, the Spirit can also beget, which obviously differs from the Spirit's creative power, because its result is not necessarily a spirit.
If, therefore, WTS apologists want to claim that "the concept of birth contrasted with creation is simply an artificial theological construct, deliberately created to avoid the fact that Jesus indeed has a beginning", then they have to turn against the Bible's use of words. And it doesn't change the fact that in addition to being born again, Scripture sometimes attributes new creation to us, because this can be considered necessary for us, fallen creatures. But there is no valid reason to argue that the birth of the Son (as the only-begotten God) was also a creation.
My WTS apologist debate partner also said that "the Bible simply solemnizes the Son's creation, for he is the first and most excellent creature, the partner of the Father, and his beloved Son." - And they talk about the above distinction as merely a human creation, when it is you who fills the thickest part of your attempted rebuttal with WTS jargon!
In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God Himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything with His own hands (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Ps 95:5-6) and by His word (Ps 33:6, Jn 1:3). Creation is thus solely and directly God's work. A "first created" being, an assistant, did not participate in it, not even indirectly. Based on all this, the Society's interpretation that Christ would be the first product of the creation process, who then created everything else, is excluded.
My debate partner also referred to "God does not multiply", yet somehow he has a Son, who according to the Bible is the "only-begotten God." Otherwise, I also don't believe that God "multiplies" because Jesus was not born in time, that is, there was never a time when the Father existed without the Son. This is proven by John 1:1, which states "in the beginning was the Word."
Colossians 1:15 refers to Jesus as the firstborn of all creation, and the immediate continuation explains this clearly, when it adds: FOR by him all things were created. Revelation 3:14 does not call Jesus a creature, but the beginning (or principle, orign, source, power - because "arche" can also mean this) of God's creation. A satisfying explanation for this is that all things were created in him and for him, all things were made through him, and without him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:3 clearly proves that Jesus is not "made", but in accordance with John 1:1, he always "was". For if Jesus were a creature, this verse would claim about him that he was created with his own cooperation, which unleashes the conceptual monster of "self-creation" on the debater who tries this.
From the fact that Jesus "was" in the world only in the sense (according to John 1:10) that he penetrated into time, you want to conclude that he "could have been" "in the beginning" only in the sense that he started this at some point, that is, he was created. Here the conclusion's lack of foundation is striking, because Barron wants to use a created form of existence (the physical world) as a springboard to prove Jesus' alleged creation, although in John 1:1 no addition indicates where or how Jesus "was in the beginning." The "arche" as a temporal limit is out of the question, because we explicitly read about Jesus that "all things were created by him," even the arche (powers, literally: beginnings). Since Jesus existed even outside the "beginning" described here, there is no longer a way to push the beginning of his existence to a certain point in time, but it is rooted in timelessness.
Stafford and other unofficial WTS apologists probably continuing an already started analogy or looking for a counterexample, I brought up the example of human procreation, but not as a proof, because otherwise there is a big difference between them. The analogy between the two procreations errs in that while man is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but God's creature (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father and as such does not require a separate act of creation.
The WTS apologists - without any biblical proof - claim that there is only one kind of "output" from the Father, and this is creation, and that the fact that the Son's origin from the Father is always described in the New Testament with the words "begotten" and "born" is just a kind of "ceremonial" expression. It is written that he "was in the beginning," while all created things "were created in the beginning" (or after). The Son's birth is unique and different not only in terminology but also in essence from that of the creatures. Because he is the only-begotten Son (and the only-begotten God), that is, in terms of sonship and begotten divinity, he is unique even when he already has many siblings from the Father. This difference includes non-createdness, because the only-begotten God cannot be a "created God" - this expression in itself would be blasphemy.
aqwsed12345

slimboyfat
As usual, WTS apologists only use "one-liner" "proof text", i.e. they throw out quotes taken out of context, now not only from the Bible, but from church history, and they use patristics only for "cherry picking" instead of they would read through the writings of even one church father from beginning to end, they are just looking for that one little half-sentence that they can triumphantly flaunt.
DID TERTULLIAN DENY THE ETERNAL NATURE OF CHRIST?
https://www.bethinking.org/jesus/the-early-church-fathers-on-jesus
200 AD Tertullian [Just as JW's attribute words to Tertullian that he never said. We draw your attention to the fact that the quoted words (from "Should you believe in the Trinity", Watchtower booklet), "There was a time when the Son was not" are not Tertullian's, but those of Bishop Kaye in his appendix section on Tertullian. (Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, p 1181). Kaye, Tertullian, some Trinitarians and all Modalists teach that Jesus was eternally pre-existent as God, and that the title of "Son" was first applied to Jesus after his incarnation. Just as a man cannot be called a father, until after he has a son, so too Jesus cannot be called a Son until after he was physically born via incarnation. This is the gist of what Kaye is saying Tertullian taught. To support this, notice this comment by Tertullian,] "For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a judge previous to sin" (Against Hermogones, Ch 3) see next quote:
[Interesting that Tertullian being a modalist, not only says there was a time before the Son became the Son, so too a time before God was the Father] Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. (Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, chapter 3)
"For before all things God was alone — being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call , by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God;" (Against Praxeas, by Tertullian)
Tertullian himself clearly believed in the Trinity ("one substance in three persons", etc.), and the Watchtower Society's quote ("There was a time when the Son did not exist") is out of context. In this section, Tertullian elaborates that while the persons are one in essence, they exist as separate persons in relation to each other: "[the Father] could not have been a Father before the Son, nor a judge before sin"; this was not an orthodox view, in fact, Tertullian contradicted himself, as in another writing he professed the Father, the Son, and the Spirit to be "eternal." [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, - Vol..3 (p. 478) Against Hermogenes 3]
The Watchtower society's another quote ("God was alone when no other beings existed.") comes from another work, and in an accurate translation, it reads: "Before all things, God was alone". The statement can again be misunderstood without context; on the one hand, Tertullian argues against the modalist (according to modalism, God is only one person, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are only three successive appearances of the one God, but they are not real persons) Praxeas, who did not consider the Logos (the Son) eternal, only a temporary, second appearance form of the one-person God. Arguing against him, Tertullian identified the Word (logos) with God's Intelligence (nous) to more easily prove the eternity of the Logos: the eternal God's Intelligence must also be eternal, so God was never alone. Of course, this speculative argument is highly debatable: if the Logos were only God's intelligence, it would not always have been an independent person, and if it had come into existence over time – within God – how could it be eternal and uncreated?
"Therefore, we do not dare to assert boldly that God was not alone even before the creation of the universe, for his intelligence [nous] and his speech [logos] which he made second within himself were in him."
[The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3 (p. 600-601) Against Praxeas 5]
Despite the Society's suggestion and Tertullian's occasionally speculative argumentation, the Church Father indeed professed the divinity of Jesus, he is the origin of the "three persons – one essence" formula, so his faith contradicts that of the Society.
"God came to live among men so that man might learn to act like God. God dealt with man as an equal, so that man might then deal with God as an equal. God humbled himself very much so that man might become very great. If you are ashamed of this God, I do not know how you can sincerely believe in the crucified God!" (Iren. Epid. II 1, 27; Haeres. III 16–24. Tertul. Marc. II 27; cf. Apol. 21.)
aqwsed12345
""Bowman (Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, page 83) argues, “The Bible does not actually say that the prehuman Jesus was begotten by the Father at some point in time.” But it does not say the Logos was begotten outside of time either!""
Here Stafford shamelessly forgets that the burden of proof would be on them. Since their organization and their specific theology were NOWHERE for two thousand years, the Catholic Church has two thousand years of continuity, so the bare minimum is that you are the "plaintiff" in this dispute (who should prove your claim, beyond reasonable doubt), and we are the "defendant".
Of course, it wouldn't hurt to prove first whether it is possible for the whole Church to fall into "great apostasy" and that "true Christianity" is supposed to be restored by Russel after nearly two thousand years after the apostles, and everyone between the two points is either idiot or a Satanist, or was an "apostate"...
Otherwise, he is wrong, since since John 1 declares that the Son "was" (thus existed) already in the beginning and does not classify him among "made" things, and Hebrews 1:3 clearly states that even the "aeons" came into being through the Son (consequently the Son could not be "created" after the creation of the "aeons"). And the Scripture also specifically states that the Son's orign from the Father is qualitatively different from that of the created angels (to whom the WTS theology lists the Son). You just have to answer the rhetorical questions the Scripture ask you in Hebrews 1:
- For to which of the angels did God ever say,
- “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”?
- And, “In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands"? (quote from Psalms 102:25, where it's stated about YHWH God)
What does it mean here that "today" he begat him? Since God is timeless and unchangeable (see: Num 23:29; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 33:11; Is 46:10, Mal 3:6; Ps 102:20), which are among the properties of God, a predicamental resting, negative attribute, therefore in Hebrews 1:5 the word "today" should be understood as eternity, in which there is neither past nor future. The statement here means: "Which angel did God ever call his eternally begotten Son?"
The divine eternity is God's perfection in relation to time, and it says negatively: divine existence has no end, no beginning, and no succession; positively: God is the creator of time; in gradation: what positive content is in time, without end and limit, is in God. Time is the real possibility of the real connection of causes and effects; in the eternal God who created time, therefore, timeless existence is not emptiness, but the fullness of activity, eternity is the simultaneous full and perfect possession of life without end and God is eternal in this sense.
The Scripture often denotes a very long duration with eternity (עוֹלָם, αἰῶν = ἀεὶ ὂν, ἀίδιον), mainly endless (e.g. Gen 17:8, Lev 3:17; Ps 5:12). In this sense, the Creed says: "I believe ... in eternal life.") and for this reason, it often attributes it to creatures, especially spirits (Mt 25:46, Lk 1:33, etc.). Nevertheless, in the sense defined above, it calls God eternal, and him alone; not formally, but in terms of content.
The Scripture denies of God the moments of time: the beginning, the end, the succession, and confesses him to exist before all time: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Ps 90:2; cf. 2:7, 102:27.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (Jn 8:58.) "I, the Lord, the first and the last; I am he." (Is 41:4; cf. Gen 1, Ps 93, 103:26–28, Deut 32:40, Dan 7:99 (attik yomim, antiquus dierum, the ancient of days) Rev 1:4–18.) God and time are not comparable quantities: "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (2 Pet 3:8; cf. Heb 1:10 Gen 1:14–19, Deut 33:26, Job 36:26, Ps 74:16, 90:4, 119:89–91, Is 43:13, 48:2, Jer 10:10, 1 Tim 1:17, Rev 4:8–11, 10:6.)
Since the Israelites did not have abstract concepts for a long time, God's eternity was expressed in the oldest times with the concept of someone existing from eternity (Genesis 21:33). In this sense, Isaiah calls the Lord an eternal rock (26:4), and he also calls him timeless and contrasts him with the pagan gods, which were created and disappear again with the cycle of the world: the Lord is eternal because he created the earth (40:28), because he is the first and will be there at the last existing (41:4; cf. 44:6; Psalm 90:2; 103:27-28), because there was no God before him and will not be (43:10). The phrase "from everlasting to everlasting" expresses the absence of a beginning and an end (Psalm 90:2; 103:17). We read about God's eternal plans, eternal love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, and dominion in many places, especially in the Psalms. There is also talk of an eternal covenant (Genesis 9:16; 17:7,13; Isaiah 24:5; Psalm 106:8), and in the wisdom books, of eternal wisdom. They also mention the absence of a beginning in relation to His plans, love, dominion, and wisdom.
The New Testament praises the eternal God in the same sense (Romans 1:20; 16:26; Philippians 4:20; 1 Timothy 1:17; Revelation 4:8 etc.), and professes the Son's eternity (Hebrews 1:10 ff; 13:8; Revelation 1:17-18), eternal dominion (Luke 1:33; Hebrews 1:8; Revelation 11:15), eternal priesthood (Hebrews 7:24-25), and often mentions the eternal possession of eschatological goods. The New Testament revelation also speaks of eternal punishment. The sacred author contrasts all these with the changing and transient earthly things. In the Book of Revelation, God is the beginning and the end, alpha and omega; he is the one who is and who was and who is to come (1:8; 21:6; 22:13).
The church fathers already emphasize and regularly discuss divine eternity against the pagans, especially often and ingeniously Augustine (Tatian. Graec. 4; Athenag. Legat. 4 10; Iren. III 8, 3; Tertul. Marc. I 8; III 28; Nazianz. Or. 38, 7; 45, 3; August. Conf. XI; Ver. relig. 49; in Ps 101: 2, 10 etc.).
Reason also sees that eternity is the direct consequence of immutability. For time is the measure of change on the basis of succession; there is no change in God, therefore there can be no time. It is also the consequence of self-existence: for self-existence excludes in God the conjunction or succession of potentiality and actuality. However, time only exists with these: the present is potential in relation to the past, the future is potential in relation to the present. Therefore, God is above temporality.
By virtue of God's eternity, although he stands outside and above all time, as its author, he is present in every moment of time; there is no moment in the flow of time, neither past nor present nor future, with which God would not coexist; in every real or imagined time, we must say: God is now. Some theologians call this God's always-existence (sempiternity) and correctly compare it with omnipresence. Thus, God's eternity is equal to the individual moments of time and the entire time series, and coexists with it; not as a long straight line is with a shorter straight line parallel to it, but as the center of a circle is with every single point and arc of the circumference. However, this relationship should not be conceived as if a shorter or longer duration in the divine eternity would correspond to a part of the time series, or even the entire time series; there is no duration in God; eternity is not the infinite sum of durations, as Aureolus thought; time, as the projection of change, cannot be attributed to God in any form.
Therefore, succession is missing in God, that is, the kind of change that we usually measure with time. there is no past and future in Him, but he experiences everything in eternal present. "One day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," we read in the New Testament (2 Peter 3:8; cf. Psalm 90:3-4). God therefore cannot rush or delay anything. From our perspective, he only seems to be waiting or delaying. We also project our own concepts onto Him when we say that he remembers something, because there is neither memory nor expectation in Him. His vision encompasses, contemplating in eternal present what for us is past, present, and future.
If we seek an analogy for God's eternal present, let's try to imagine the following: someone watching a procession from a very high platform sees the people not only passing in front of him, but also those who have already passed and those who will arrive later. The higher someone watches the procession from, the more they can grasp from the present, past, and future. God watches the world and its events entirely "from above".
FedUpJW

I have to say that I am seeing posts that prove the adage that some people can say so little with so many words.
Blotty

aqwsed12345
way too long not even gonna bother reading - 90% of what you say is inspired by Greek philosophy
multiple scholars have refuted the "was" argument - the different words are easy to explain if you would just look at their usage in the NT
Note the word for first-created was not in common use until the days of the LXX - first created and firstborn have parallel meanings
aqwsed12345

Blotty
"way too long not even gonna bother reading"
The fact that you might have ADHD and find it difficult to interpret long texts is not my fault.
"90% of what you say is inspired by Greek philosophy"
Specifically, which of my statements are you making this claim about, and on what basis do you claim that this specific statement of mine was actually "inspired" by Greek philosophy?
I note that the apostles do not seem to have shared the WTS's abhorrence of "Greek philosophy", since the terminology of the New Testament is full of terms that are frequently discussed in Greek philosophy, such as pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, and even also "aieon" discussed here. According to this: the apostles were not at all averse to the use of terms and concepts that had their own precedents and parallels in Greek philosophy as well.
If you had read through what I wrote, you would have found many biblical references.
I note that what the Watchtower labels with the term "philosophy" is usually nothing more than the use of common sense, logic, and conclusions. Of course, they want to discourage their rank-and-file members from this, so that they don't end up using the particular organ that is in their skull, because "OMG! That's philosophy!" Cf. Thought-terminating cliché
But if we're making accusations of association our debate partner of "Greekizing", I would like to note that instead of pure theism, the image of the God of the Watchtower is much more similar to ancient Greek polytheism. Because they take literally the antopomorphistic descriptions of God found in the Old Testament, their image of God is like that about how a 4-5 year old kind imagines God: literally sitting on a chair above the clouds, with a white beard, watching him, and getting mad at him if he eats the chocolate that mommy forbade him. The Christian image of God teaches the absolute timeless and transcendent nature of God, God himself is the unchanging pure being (actus purus).
"multiple scholars have refuted the "was" argument"
If it really is "multiple scholars have refuted" this, then it will surely not be difficult for you to name one in particular. I'm curious to see who that famous "scholar" might be.
"the different words are easy to explain if you would just look at their usage in the NT"
It is quite sad that if this has to be "explained", especially when the Watchtower claims that their theology is "clearly", "plainly" taught by the Bible (then why do they need the FDS?). think it would be more appropriate if you thought about the rhetorical questions asked in the first chapter to the Hebrews.
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? [...] Are they not all ministering spirits?"
So where does the New Testament use the terms 'ktizo', especially 'poio', for the orign of the Son from the Father? Huh? Where does he say that he is a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis)?
"Note the word for first-created was not in common use until the days of the LXX - first created and firstborn have parallel meanings"
This is a total self-goal: the "firstborn" means distinguished, preeminent heir in biblical context. This is even supported by what your bosses wrote, open it up:
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483
"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ is shown to be “the first-born of all creation” as well as “the first-born from the dead.” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; 3:14)"
So even on the basis of their publication (Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584) it can be supported that the statement in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean that he is the "first created being", but that he enjoys the status of the "firstborn", being in preeminent position as distinguished heir in relation to the whole creation.
So the standard interpretation of this verse just seems fine for the Watchtower as well, if it is not to be abused as a "one-liner" "proof text".
Blotty

1. Im not ADHD - atleast I have the decency to object to actual argument instead of being a child and talking around the issue - you don't address the real issue, I have already said why First-created is never applied to Jesus (try Greg Stafford aswell, or Edgar Foster). How many people on here have asked to make your posts shorter... I can cite atleast 5.
you have no respect for others opinions and objective evidence so in turn I have no respect for yours and dont have time to read your posts.. you say Im being disrespectful by pasting a bunch of links - but you are being no better when others (not myself) ask for shorter posts and you refuse, your just as bad as I am, arguably worse.
you talk about many issues but only cite one side of the story- where's the other half?
2. I'm not affiliated with the Watchtower in any shape or form, so they are not my "bosses" - you can go smoke that one..
3. shall we just list a few famous who said we should understanding "was" as aorist? try Barclay - if you read my cited sources awhile back there are a bunch listed on there, you know the bit where you said I was disrespectful
4. Where is God as a whole called "Firstborn" because God is pre-eminent over all creation aswell right?
6. why would I cite to you where your Greek philosophy lies? you give me no reason to want too, as this is nothing but a wind up.. Just look at the language you use and compare, it aint hard - or try a catholic dictionary, where most ADMIT the trinity is a made up fabrication. tho protestants have a hard time with this..
" where does the New Testament use the terms 'ktizo', especially 'poio', for the origin of the Son from the Father? " - there's a grammatical pattern your missing, but ill let the "genius" figure that one out.
list everything created and where it is called a "creature" Dm me that list - everything had better be explicitly called a creature + it had better come from the books of the bible (Gen - Rev) no where else.
shall we look at the other usages in the lxx where the one called firstborn was not only part of its respective group (sons of, creation etc), but also the first one in a position. Who all had a beginning.
I have opened it up, you can stop selectively quoting now..
did anyone called firstborn only have pre-emminence and was never born... if it only meant pre-emminence and not its lexical meaning then it shouldn't be applied to anyone else
Jesus is the beginning, the firstborn of the dead - because he was not only part of the group (dead) but also the first one resurrected under what I believe is called the "new covenent" hense "First" or "beginning" of that respective group. (the resurrections God performed through him, no longer matter) just as in Hebrews 11:17 theres a reason monogenes is used of Issac - he is not eternally begotten as trinitarians would have it (if they were consistent) but is the only begotten (GRK means: sole descent/ lineage) of Sarah and her "new" husband.
still waiting on an example of where someone is called firstborn but not part of the group. - nobody else on here can find me an example. and no Ro. 8:29 doesnt count ask any of the sources I cited previously. it means the same.. (see biblehub aswell)
slimboyfat

I don’t think accusing others of psychological problems or purposely trying to mislead adds anything to your posts. You write some interesting information but the bitter tone gets in the way. I don’t accuse you of trying to distort or purposely misquoting. It would be a better exchange, and in general makes for better dialogue if you make the assumption that we are each interested in finding out the truth.
I came across the reference in Tertullian about there being a time when the Son did not exist most recently in the book Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30 to 325 (London, Penguin Books: 2013) by Geza Vermes. He makes these further comments on Tertullian:
Tertullian firmly opposed the co-eternity of the Son and endeavoured to demonstrate it in a fashion prefiguring Arius in the age of Nicaea:

‘There was a time when neither sin, nor the Son co-existed with the Deity. Sin made God into a judge, and the Son made him into a Father … Just as he became Father through the Son and judge through sin, so God also became Lord by means of the creatures he had made in order to serve him.’ (Against Hermogenes 3)

Elsewhere, in conformity with earlier tradition, which echoed the New Testament, Tertullian presented Christ as inferior to God the Father. ‘Whatever was the substance of the Word that I designate as a person, I claim it for the name of the Son; and while I recognise the Son, I maintain that he is second to the Father.’ (Against Praxeas 7.9)

"outside of time" argument

Share this