Posts by slimboyfat

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

slimboyfat

Looking at the NT evidence of the word “firstborn”:

In Matt 1.25 and Luke 2.7 Jesus is described as Mary’s firstborn son.

In Romans 8.29 Jesus described as the “firstborn among many brothers” in the new creation.

In Col 1.18 Jesus is called the “firstborn from the dead”.

So you can see why the straightforward reading of Col 1.15 is that Jesus truly is “the firstborn of all creation”. Origen, who described Jesus as a creature and the oldest creation, and other pre-Nicene Christians understood the phrase in its straight forward sense. Even in the fourth century dispute with Arius the tendency of Trinitarians was to argue that Col 1.15 “the firstborn of all creation” doesn’t refer to the original creation rather than attempting to deny the meaning of the word “firstborn”.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

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)

81

Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 in

ok i'll bite.. let's say for a moment that jehovah's witnesses are right, and that the nt autographs (the originals) contained the tetragrammaton.let's say that the nt writers always wrote "jehovah" in greek (iexoba, as the witnesses spell it currently) when they quoted the hebrew scriptures, whether they quoted from the hebrew version or the septuagint, and jehovah's name appeared on the quote.

let's say that the original septuagint always had iexoba whenever they were referring to jehovah.then we have that the original septuagint said in psalms 101:26-28 the following:"at the beginning it was you, o jehovah, who founded the earth, and the heavens are works of your hands.

they will perish, but you will endure, and they will all become old like a garment.

slimboyfat

I think it might be wise for Trinitarians to accommodate the idea that the divine name occurred in the New Testament into their theology because, you never know, the evidence for it might get stronger and stronger as more discoveries are made. Two hundred years ago there were no copies of the LXX with the divine name, all we had was outside evidence. Now there are a number of manuscripts with direct evidence and further corroborating outside evidence. It’s reasonable to suppose that fragments of the New Testament with the divine name may be uncovered at some point.

66

"outside of time" argument

by Blotty in

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.

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

168

Moral responsibility.

by nicolaou in

no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.

please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.

a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!

slimboyfat

There's no reason for inaction

This is assuming the conclusion you’re driving at. We don’t know there is “no reason” why God allows things to happen. There might be a reason, there might not be a reason. We are not in a position to say with certainty.

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

Simon Conway Morris argues that evolution is evidence in favour of God’s existence.

https://youtu.be/WsCBbN-bM8E

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/09/10/paleobiologist-simon-conway-morris-gives-evidence-for-god-from-evolution/

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

LE should have a stab at it too, as a regular reader of the thread with inside information. What say you?

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

You asked

name these biologists who think intelligence might have been involved in evolution.

Simon Conway Morris believes God set up reality precisely so that evolution necessarily ends up producing conscious beings such as humans. If that doesn’t meet your idea of “intelligence being involved in evolution” that’s your choice.

196

would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

a good question is would you be more happy not knowing what you now know?.

were you more happy pimi?

are all the pimis more happy than the the pimos or the pomos?.

slimboyfat

Simon Conway Morris, evolutionary biologist at Cambridge University

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

I say down 19 to 511

He’s obviously decided to ride the stupidity of his subscribers all the way to the bottom. Because the idea that he give a toss about producing anything up to date on his channel is disproved week in week out. He’ll keep collecting the donations, with minimal effort on his part, for as long as people are stupid enough to send the money, which could be a long, long time at this rate.