Posts by aqwsed12345

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

It’s not prejudice, but the logical conclusion of the following facts:

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
the NT exclusively describes the creation’s, and the creatures’ coming in the existence by terms derived from ‘ktizo’ and ‘poioi’
therefore there must be a significant difference in quality between these two
the Scripture cannot contradict itself
therefore the OT cannot maintain that the Son is a creature, especially not the sense of ‘poio’

I assume those secular scholars disregard the point 4. So the logical conclusion can only be, that in the Proverbs 8:22

‘Qanah’ simpy doesn’t mean ‘ktizo’, but ‘ktáomai’, Jerome’s solution.
‘Qanah’ may mean ‘ktizo’, but not in the abused Arian sense, which is actually ‘poio’, therefore in the general meaning of it, which also includes: for example “to appoint”. Athaniasius’ solution.
‘Qanah’ can mean even ‘poio’ (highly unlikely, even from linguistic POV), but applied to the Incarnate Christ, according to which of course He’s a creature
‘Qanah’ can mean whatever, since it’s not literally about the generation of the Son/Logos of the NT, but an allegory of the Wisdom of God, so whatever this means, theologically irrelevant for the Christology. This solution is also acceptable for the WTS.

The choice is yours :-)

Btw, check this: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/קנה

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

slimboyfat

I love these expression from you: "the most competent and respected", "the majority of expert". Oh WOW!

This obviously shows your attitude. Obviously, the same "the most competent and respected" and "the majority of expert" scholars would also "scientifically" establish how imperfect the Holy Scriptures are and are actually just a collection of ancient superstitions. This is chronolatry, this arrogant worship of "modern science", that invents completely new things that no one has thought of before. Everyone used to be an idiot centuries before. Everyone is smart now. Some guy living in the 21th century obviously knows what ancient Christians actually professed, than the ancient writers, the church fathers themself, just as the newest iPhone is better than the old one.

If it is described in a Harvard publication that Jesus did not exist, then of course it is so. If an ancient author writes something, it is worthless "because it's [the current year]" (by Trudeau). I don't want to disparage researchers in general, but you don't have to fall for them, of course you have to know their methodology, but especially that everyone obviously wants to discover something "revolutionary".

Athanasius used simply used the LXX, and could defend the Nicene doctrine, just pointing out that the Arians when they read and say ktizo, they actually mean poio. Ktizo can be interpreted in the Orthodox way, and does not imply poio.

Jerome did not make a biased Bible translation at all, even the WTS publications recognize this and present him as a high-impact honest Bible translator, and never accused him of Trinitarian bias (only for translating the Tetragrammaton as "Dominus"). I note that many people in his time criticized Jerome precisely because he was translating directly from the Hebrew scriptures, why he was not from the traditionally accepted Septuagint, and why he was taking lessons from the Jews, learning Hebrew, and accused him of being a Judaizer. He started to translate the Vulgate after the Council of Constantinople, when Arianism wasn't an issue at all for him. He translated "qanani" as "possedit" most probably because this is how the the Hebrew-speaking Jews in Palestine back then understood it, following Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.

The Peshitta (Syriac) isn't translated from Hebrew, but most likely from the Greek Septuagint.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

Because Book of Proverbs belongs to the Ketuvim, the Wisdom literature, and it must be interpreted according to its poetic genre characteristics. So, if you want to understand what "qanah" means here, compare how "qanah" is used elsewhere in that book, not in the Genesis, written centurie before.

It is quite clear what Arians do, they take one of the least likely meanings of the word, and then interpret this least likely meaning of that meaning in the least likely way, which is excluded by other statements in Scripture.

And again, do you realize that even WTS publications admit that the Wisdom of Proverbs is not literally the Son (the Logos), but a feminine allegory that only can be applied figuratively to the Son as a tipology? So even is the adequate word for creating (bara) stood there, still would not prove the Arianism?

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

Just read John 1:1a with understanding, "in the beginning was the Word,"... now say it loudly: "in the beginning ... was", and then repeat WAS, WAS, WAS, until the message gets through your mind. And after that: according Hebrews 1:2 even the "ages" (aion) were made through the Son? So without aions there is no time, no temporality, no before and after, so He is eternal.

So how can you say that the following definition for the generation of the Son from the Father in the Nicene Creed is not Scriptural? It's terminology and content is completely scriptural!

"begotten of the Father before all ages (æons)", "begotten, not made"
"γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων" [gennethenta pro panton ton aionon], "γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα" [gennithenta ou poiithenta]

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Still doesn't matter, since it's still not "creating" in the sense as Arians interpreted it. Ktizo has a various, as well the english word "create". When the pope "creates" a cardinal, doesn't mean he brings him to existence ex nihilo, but appoints him to a position.

Secondly: the Wisdom of Proverbs 8 is not the Logos of John per se, but a literature allergory, which can be applied (but not equated) to Him, so even if the verb 'bara' stood there, also wouldn't prove the Arian sense of Son's originating.

The NT declares multiple times that Son is "born" / "begotten" of the Father, is it so difficult to accept?

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Have you already checked its basic meaning in the Book of Proverbs?

1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.

So 'qanah' in the whole book of Proverbs means something, but right in 8:22 it means something else, because the JWs need a "one liner" "proof text" ... and doesn't matter if is ruled out by several other specific and literal scriptural statements about the Son, which declare that the Son "in the beginning" already was, and existed even "before" the aeons. It also doesn't matter that neither the Holy Scriptures nor any early Christian writer says he's a "created angel" or Michael.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

BoogerMan

The answer for your question lies in your comment: because of the Incarnation. Look after the dual nature and the hypostatic union of Jesus.

"For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and made flesh, nor yet that it was changed into the whole man (composed) of soul and body but rather (we say) that the Word, in an ineffable and inconceivable manner, having hypostatically united to Himself flesh animated by a rational soul, became Man and was called the Son of Man, not according to the will alone or by the assumption of a person alone, and that the different natures were brought together in a real union, but that out of both in one Christ and Son, not because the distinction of natures was destroyed by the union, but rather because the divine nature and the human nature formed one Lord and Christ and Son for us, through a marvelous and mystical concurrence in unity. . . . For it was no ordinary man who was first born of the Holy Virgin and upon whom the Word afterwards descended; but being united from the womb itself He is said to have undergone flesh birth, claiming as His own the birth of His own flesh. Thus [the holy Fathers] did not hesitate to speak of the holy Virgin as the Theokos." (Council of Ephesus)

"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He was parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us." (Chalcedonian Definition)

"Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead." (Athanasian Creed)

Check this:

http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com/trinity/trinity-jehovahs-witnesses.pdf

Additionally, in the Old Testament we find a number of references to people who claimed that they saw God. For example, in Isaiah 6:1–5 Isaiah gives testimony of having seen God and he is worded because he knew the Old Testament concept that no man can see God and live, a truth that God had stated to Moses at Exodus 33:20. The answer to the apparent problem is simply that Isaiah saw God in a vision. Humans would surely die if they saw God openly displayed in all His infinite power and glory. It would be as if you or 1 were to stand a few inches away from the sun of our solar system. We would be instantly consumed and turned into a puff of smoke (see Hebrews 12:29).

But God can appear to man, either by vision or by concealing Himself in human form. A careful examination of Genesis 18 and Judges 13 should make this truth abundantly clear. This also explains why Jesus Himself could insist, in John 6:46, that no man had ever seen God the Father, yet at John 14:9 He could inform Philip, “...He who has seen Me has seen the Father.” (NASB)

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

Of course, I responded to him substantially. Of course, biblical terms, especially in Hebrew, have many nuances of meaning, and even if you translate "qanah" as "ktizo" in Greek or "create" in English (for which there is obviously a precedent, no matter how much you repeat it to me, which of course I was aware of), even then this cannot be justified in the sense of "bara", "poiéō", "creatio ex nihilo", "bring into existence in time", which the Arians asserted. The Nicene creed condemned to use the verb "poiéō", not the "ktizo", in relation of the generation of the Son of the Father.

This is a good example of the fact that it is not enough to look at the dictionary form of biblical exegesis, it is necessary to dive into the specific meaning of each translation (which is necessarily an interpretation).

You should compare how is the verb 'qanah' translated in the Book of Proverbs 1:5, 4:5, 4:7, 15:32, 16:16, 18:15, 19:8.

Authoritative ancient Jewish translators such as Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, all translated this as ἐκτήσατο, which captures the meaing of "qanah" much better.

κτᾰ́ομαι • (ktáomai)

(transitive) to get, obtain, acquire, gain, win
(transitive, of consequences) to bring on oneself, incur
(transitive, perfect and pluperfect) to have acquired, have, own, possess

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Wonderment:

Why didn't you read the end of the opening comment?

There I specifically mentioned that the translation of "pas", "panta" as "everything else", "all other" is only justifiable, in the case it is already completely clear from the context that the previously mentioned person or thing also belongs to the "all", "everything" group mentioned after, so it's self efident that is also included.

For example, Luke 13:2, which the Watchtower refers to, where it is clear that these people were also Galileans.

Or Luke 21:29 - It is written that the fig tree also belongs to the category of trees. But it is not written about Jesus that he is also a creature.

And since the Bible nowhere calls the Son a created being (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis), and the the correct meaning of "prōtotokos pasēs ktiseōs" here is not that he is the first created being, but rather that he is "distinguished, pre-eminent heir (ruler) of the whole creation", thus "over the whole creation", it is not justifiable to put the word "other" in the following.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

Earnest:

This is still not the primary meaning of the word "qanah", and in this case especially not even in the "creatio ex nihilo", "bara", or "poiéō" sense. At most, as it is used in the sense of "creation" of the cardinals, which does not mean "made", but appointing. Especially since the text itself states that this "qanani" happened before "his works of old", i.e. before His works of creation, as it follows.

Athanasius receiving ἔκτισεν ektisen, took it in the sense of appointing, and saw in the Septuagint a declaration that the Father had made the Son the "chief," the "head," the "sovereign," over all creation. There does not seem indeed any ground for the thought of creation either in the meaning of the root, or in the general usage of the word. What is meant in this passage is that we cannot think of God as ever having been without Wisdom.

So the Fathers uderstood ἔκτισε of the LXX by referring it not to the actual existence, but to the position, place of the Son (Athanasius: Deus me creavit regem or caput operum suorum; Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum).

So the verb "ktizein" is used by Athanasius, and its meaning was disputed by the Arians. In classical Greek usage, "ktizein" meant: to cultivate the land, make it habitable, found to establish.

This is in harmony, with the previous understanding of the Church, check up Dionysius's epislte Against the Sabellians, well before the Arian controversy.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

aqwsed12345

I see what it is about in this case, beyond your religious bias. Today there is a so-called chronolatry, a worship of time, according to which people today are different from 500, 1000, 2000 years ago. There is this idolatry of "modern science" and "modern scholarship", compared to which the ancient Bible translators would have been imbeciles. So completely new perspectives are opening up in the humanities as well, just as a new iPhone model is released every year.

Jerome translated it completely independently of the Arian controversy, because by then the whole issue was closed. The Nicene Fathers were able to refute Arianism with a mistranslation of the Septuagint at hand. The Jewish revisers of the Septuagint translation (Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus) cannot be accused of Christian theological bias. You're throwing authorities at me here, in the usual WTS propaganda "quote miner" way. "To create" is not at all the primary meaning of the Hebrew verb "qanah", compare the other verses given.

In particular, this cannot be used to support the Arian interpretation, since the Wisdom of Proverbs is not one-to-one here as the Son revealed in the New Testament, but only a typology that can be applied to it. Especially since this interpretation is ruled out by several other specific and literal scriptural statements about the Son, which declare that the Son was from the beginning and existed even before the aeons.

I also quote from here:

"Created" in Proverbs 8:22

Mondo1 also claims that use of ktizó in Proverbs 8:22 LXX is a "proper" rendering of the Hebrew qny and denies a quasi-biological sense of "beget". This is not the conclusion of the various lexical studies I have seen of Proverbs 8:22, in particular those of William Irwin (JBL, 1961) and Bruce Vawter (JBL, 1980). They note the lack of evidence that this root is used to mean "create" (as a fashioning or constructing of things), and show that most instances in the OT have the sense of "acquire/possess" and "produce/become parent of". The latter has a quasi-biological nuance in Genesis 4:1, Deuteronomy 32:6, Psalm 139:13, and one may also recall qnyt ilm as an epithet of Asherah, which has in view her status as mother of the gods.

Irwin notes that qnny in Proverbs 8:22 is syntactically connected to the phrase r'shyt drkw, and drk when attributed to God (e.g. drk yhwh "way of Yahweh") refers to God's qualities and principles (cf. "righteousness" and "justice" in Genesis 18:19, see also Psalm 119:27, 33, Proverbs 10:29, Jeremiah 5:4, Ezekiel 18:29, etc.); "wisdom" would thus be the drk "way" that is possessed or produced by Yahweh "before (qdm) his works of old". As for r'shyt (which lacks a preposition unlike the temporal b-rshyt in Genesis 1:1 or m-r'sh in Proverbs 8:23), Irwin finds a protemporal meaning unlikely:

"The origin of Wisdom was long antecedent to God's work in creating the world and is sharply contrasted with it: before the mountains and hills, before earth or heavens were made, then Wisdom existed. The emphasisis not that Wisdom came into being, by whatever process, as the first of God's creative activities nor at their beginning, but long before them. This is stated so clearly in v. 22b and 23 that there should have been no confusion" (p. 140).

Instead of taking it as temporal, he takes r'shyt with a nuance of "preeminent" (as in Numbers 24:20) as an accusative in apposition to the first person suffix, i.e. "he possessed/produced me as the foremost of his ways/attributes". As for Vawter's analysis, he notes that in Proverbs 8:22 "wisdom is said to have pre-existed the created order and therefore to be outside of it, though in some fashion it subsequently became instrumental in the production of the created order" (p. 213), and regards the drkw "his way" as referring to Yahweh's creative modus operandi and "principle" (p. 214), pointing to Proverbs 4:7 which strikingly states that the r'shyt chkmh "beginning of wisdom" is to "acquire wisdom (qnh chkmh)". In this close parallel (which uses the key words qnh and r'shyt in connection with chkmh "wisdom"), r'shyt is used to indicate the fundamental or elementary principle of wisdom (cf. elemental r'sh in Psalm 119:160 and elemental arkhé in Hebrews 5:12, 6:1), namely, that it must be acquired. In this light, "Yahweh acquired/possessed me as the r'shyt of his ways" would then mean that Yahweh's acquisition of wisdom (= qnh chkmh of 4:7) is the basic elementary principle underlying his ways (= r'shyt chkmh in 4:7). Both analyses agree that r'shyt is not used in a protemporal sense.

The LXX rendered r'shyt drkw as arkhén hodón autou "beginning of his ways" and r'shyt chkmh of 4:7 as arkhé sophias "beginning of wisdom", but qnny in 8:22 is unexpectedly translated as ektise me "created me". This rendering is unusual because Hebrew qny is regularly rendered with ktésthai "acquire" in the LXX (61 or 63 times, as opposed to only 3 with ktizó), hence Proverbs 4:7 LXX has ktésai sophian "acquire wisdom". The expected ektésato me "acquired me" in fact occurs in the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion (cf. possedit "he possessed" in the Vulgate). It is noteworthy that the correct ektésato me "acquired me" is very similar to ektise me "created me", suggesting that a copyist error may have occurred at some point; in fact yqnw in Jeremiah 32:15 appears erroneously as ktisthésontai in one MS of the LXX, as opposed to the correct ktéthésontai in the others.

Of course, the LXX rendering with ktizó would have been one important source of influence for Hellenistic Jewish wisdom/Logos theology and early Christian christology, regardless of what Proverbs 8:22 meant in the original Hebrew; the LXX rendering should thus be treated separately from the Hebrew text. Most strikingly, Sirach 1:4, 9, 24:8-9 allude to Proverbs 8:22, i.e. "wisdom was created before all other things (protera pantón ekistai sophia)" in 1:4 and "in the beginning he created me (ap arkhés ektisen me)" in 24:9. But cf. ektésamén in 24:6 (= primatum habui in the Vulgate), which may be alluded to in Colossians 1:18. Philo of Alexandria however did not follow the attested LXX rendering....he rendered Proverbs 8:22 as "God acquired me as the very first of his works (ho theos ektésato me prótistén tón heautou ergón), a reading that takes r'shyt as propartial and qnny as "he possessed/acquired".