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

By the way, I checked if Jerome wrote anything about the translation of Proverbs 8:22, since unlike you, I look after the sources directly... So in 418 AD Jerome wrote a letter (Epislte no. 140) to a presbyter named Cyprian, and explain him the Psalm 90, and he mentioned it only slightly:

Antequam montes nascerentur, et parturiretur terra et orbis, a saeculo usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Septuaginta: Antequam montes firmarentur, et fingeretur terra et orbis, a saeculo et usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Hunc locum quidam prava distinctione subvertunt, maxime hi qui volunt ante fuisse animas, quam homo in sexti diei numero conderetur. Ita enim legunt atque distinguunt: Domine, refugium factus es nobis, a generatione in generationem, prius quam montes firmarentur, et fingeretur terra et orbis: ut scilicet postea consequatur, a saeculo et usque in saeculum tu es Deus. Ita enim edisserunt. Si Dominus, antequam montes firmarentur, et fingeretur terra orbisque terrarum, refugium fuit hominum; ergo fuerunt animae in coelestibus, antequam hominum corpora formarentur. Nos autem, ut proposuimus, lectionem ita debemus distinguere: Antequam montes firmarentur et fingeretur terra et orbis terrarum, a saeculo et usque in saeculum tu es Deus; ut non refugium nostrum fuerit ante conditionem mundi, qui necdum eramus; sed quod Deus ab aeterno usque in aeternum sit semper Deus. Pro eo enim quod Latinus interpres posuit, a saeculo usque in saeculum, et Hebraice dicitur OLAM, rectius interpretabimur, a sempiterno usque ad sempiternum. Simile quid et in Proverbiis ex persona sapientiae, qui Christus est, legitur [in the Septuagint]: Dominus creavit me initio viarum suarum in opera sua, ante saecula fundavit me in principio, antequam terram faceret et abyssos priusquam procederent fontes aquarum, priusquam montes firmarentur, ante omnes colles generavit me. Nullum autem debet verbum creationis movere, cum in Hebraeo non sit creatio quae dicitur BARA; sed possessio. Ita enim scriptum est: ADONAI CANANI BRESITH DERCHO, quod in lingua nostra exprimitur: Dominus possedit me initio viarum suarum. Inter possessionem autem et creationem multa diversitas est. Possessio significat, quod semper Filius in Patre et Pater in Filio fuerit. Creatio autem eius qui prius non erat, conditionis exordium. Potest iuxta leges tropologiae hoc quod dicitur: Antequam montes firmarentur et fingeretur terra et orbis terrarum, significare, quod antequam in anima nostra sublimia dogmata firmarentur, et terra corporis nostri fingeretur sive stabiliretur a Deo, et orbis terrarum qui Hebraice dicitur THEBEL; Graece significantius dicitur οἰκουμένη, quam nos, habitatam, transferre possumus, firmaretur, sive stabiliretur, Deus nobis semper refugium fuerit. Habitata est autem anima, non deserta, quae hospitem meretur habere Deum, dicente Salvatore: Ego et Pater veniemus, et mansionem apud eum faciemus. Illud autem quod et Hebraicum habet, et omnes alii Interpretes: Antequam montes nascerentur, et parturiretur terra, manifeste ad tropologiam nos trahit. Neque enim montes et terra nativitatem parturitionemque recipiunt, sed conditionem. Ex quo liquido demonstratur, sanctos quoque excelsasque virtutes, Dei semper misericordia procreari.

Check this: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03090892211032244

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

Fisherman

The New Testament speaks of Father, but it does not speak of Jehovah or Yahweh. So you can't even identify the two. Paul does not call the Father the only God against Jesus, but against idols. But John calls Jesus the only begotten God. So Jesus is none other than the only God, just was inn the incarnate form. One of God's names is Yahweh. Another name: Father. But Jesus is also God, so his name is also the name of God.

There was no time before "the beginning", because time began then. The big bang hypothesis also contains something similar.

Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I am." And JWs twist it like this: "I was already before there was Abraham." Well, this is what is not worth cultivating. Here, the unusual language also has a deeper message, which the JWs miss.

Surely it is written that "in the beginning was the Word." And this emphatic statement stands in the place of the Genesis paraphrase, "In the beginning God created the Word." So, instead of the date of the birth of the Word, we read about him as someone who "was" in "the beginning" (that is, when time began), that is, existed. This means that his birth was not in time. And this is really logical, even based on the Word, even if you argue against it with your short concept of time.

If by "before the beginning" it's meant "outside of time", it is trivially true. If you mean that there was a time when the Son did not exist, then you are wrong, and that too is trivial. After all, in this case, the "beginning" would not have been a beginning, because there would have been a time before it. And in this second case, the text could at most say that "in the beginning the Word was." But that's not what it says. Ergo.

The Son was not born in time, but "was in the beginning", there is no difference between the Father and the Son in the degree of divinity, but within the divinity the Son as a person subordinates himself to the Father in the order of salvation (in the economy, not ontologically).

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

It looks like you don't want to hear what I'm saying: Justin was never an Arian, he said that Jesus was God in the real sense. He never called him an angel, in the sense of Michael of WTS. Angelos is understood here in a general sense. Read through both referenced letters, and don't get caught up in a particular phrase. Justin's writings are an oration, not theological treatise. It is no coincidence that the Arians of the 4th century could not really refer to church fathers.

It's funny how Adela Yarbro Collins tries to explain Thomas' statement to Jesus in John 20:28. In the next verse, Jesus interprets this specifically as a confession of faith and accepts the address. But according to your source, a monotheistic Jewish man who knew neither Latin nor Greek must have thought of the title of the then unborn Roman emperor Domitian. Ehh..

Why don't you throw out these books (which you only use for WTS-like abusive quote mining, rather than actual own research) and read early Christian writers directly, in their entirety?

"I’m not really following your logic that if Jesus was created before the world was created that means he wasn’t really created."

Where is it stated in the NT anywhere, that Jesus was created before worls? It says He's begotten, before the creation of the aeions. It's the same as the Nicene creed contains.

Lactantius was also Trinitarian

“He was made both Son of God in the spirit and Son of man in the flesh, that is, both God and man” (Divine Institutes 4:13:5 [A.D. 307]).

“We, on the other hand, are [truly] religious, who make our supplications to the one true God. Someone may perhaps ask how, when we say that we worship one God only, we nevertheless assert that there are two, God the Father and God the Son—which assertion has driven many into the greatest error . . . [thinking] that we confess that there is another God, and that he is mortal. . . . [But w]hen we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate each, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father” (ibid., 4:28–29).

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

"Are you not placing an irrational amount of weight into the Greek philosophy department trying to explain John 1.1?"

I've written this about Rev 3:14, but don't say this to me, but to John and Paul, who seemingly had no such aversion to "Greek philosophy", and as we can see, they specifically used concepts that had such a echo in the Hellenic context. Of course, WTS gets hysterical aversion when someone just mentions the word "philosophy", but if we want to explore what a Greek word meant at that time, why not take into account what educated Greek-speaking people meant by it at that time?

As for your further argument, you're completely missing the point, or you simply don't want to understand it, but that's a straw man. I did not dedecue the eternity of the Word merely from the past tense of the copula ("was"), but from the fact that John's prologue specifically says in a laconic sentence that the Logos "in the beginning" already "was"...

And since the wording of John's prologue ("en arkhé") clearly rhymes with Genesis 1:1, "in the beginning" here means the beginning in the absolute sense.

If we read that "In the beginning was the Word.", then that excludes that He was created in time. John does not begin his gospel with the appearance of Jesus Christ in time and in this world, but returns to the "beginning", when there was no matter, and thus there was no world, no space and time, but from God's eternal will, He "was" at his word the world was created... In this beginning, the Word was already the Logos, the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

In the beginning, when created things came into being, that is, at the beginning of the world and time (as Gen 1:1), when there was nothing but God, before all creatures; He did not become, but already was, already existed; therefore, the Word is uncreated, before time, that is, without beginning, from eternity. He did not become in time and not at the time of his human birth (as the Arian and Ebionite heretics claimed).

Jesus is eternal and Creator (cf. Isa 9:6; Mic 5:2; Jn 1:1.3.10; 8:58; 13:19; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Col. 1:15-17; Hebrews 1:2.8.10; 13:8; 1 John 1:1; Rev. 1:17-18; 22 :13). In addition to the above definite references, the Scriptures also state that only God is the Creator alone (cf. Gen 1:1; Ps 33:6; Is 40:28; 44:24; Rom 11:36; 1 Cor 11:12; Eph 3 :9; Hebrews 1:10, 2:10).

Additionally according to Hebrews 1:2, even the aeions were created by the Son, so He is begotten before the creation of time, his generation from the Father is timeless, outside of time temporality.

I would suggest to your attention that the Father says: "today I have begotten you". If God is outside of time, when is "today" for him? He has no yesterday or tomorrow, he has "today" forever. So if for God he begot the Son "today", then it means a timeless, eternal begetting.

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

"JWs agree Jesus was “God/god” before the world was created. That’s what John 1.1 says."

Unfortunalte they fail to recognise that "before the worlds" (aeons) means before the creation of time also, so if someone (in this case the Son) already existed before the aions, than He has no beginning in time, thus eternal, and only God can be eternal. This the very same thing the Nicene Creed contain:

"begotten of the Father before all ages (æons)", "begotten, not made"
"But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church."

I find it really interesting by the way, that you have already fallen on the face with Justin, but still instisting: Justin's Christology is very trinitarian, he calls Jesus real God, namely in the Nicene, not in WTS Michael-demigod sense. He uses "angelos" in a very generic meaning: messenger, does not put Jesus into a WTS Michael position.

"Justin Martyr calls Jesus god freely, as you point out, which is quite a contrast to the NT itself. So he has travelled some distance from a biblical perspective."

Oh really? How many times the NT calls Jesus God? Even "ho theos" like in John 20:28. And I am still interested how could those mysterious evil apostates destroy the true church in just few decades, if Jesus promised that the Spirit will be always with the church, and even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it...

Your last quote is bogus, in the original greek text there is no "another God", and no “subject to the Maker of all things”, either.

Your new quote is also a fail: "καὶ ἐξομοιουμένων ἀγαθῶν ἀγγέλων στρατόν", there is no "other" in the text, Justin does not rank Jesus to the angels.

And you still haven't managed to find out what John Locke based his opinion on. So it remains a mystery. Are we supposed to simply believe it, without corraborating?

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

Another self goal. Shouldn't you finally take my advice and throw out the books of liberal Protestants, skeptical-secular Bible criticists, who want to tell you what the early Church actually believed, and what Church Fathers really thought? Why don't you pick it up and read directly what they wrote?

I replied again, "If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel *, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes [messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation."

" ὃς καὶ ἄγγελος καλεῖται, διὰ τὸ ἀγγέλλειν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὅσαπερ βούλεται αὐτοῖς ἀγγεῖλαι ὁ τῶν ὅλων ποιητής"

Footnote: Or, "Messenger." In the various passages in which Justin assigns the reason for Christ being called angel or messenger, Justin uses also the verb ἀγγέλλω, to convey messages, to announce. The similarity between ἄγγελος and ἀγγέλλω cannot be retained in English, and therefore the point of Justin's remarks is lost to the English reader.

Justin did not say "angel" in the JW's Michael-Jesus sense at all. The Hebrew malʼākh and the Greek angelos simply mean "messenger", in a general sense. Here it's especially clear that Justin used the general meaning of angelos: He is called angelos, BECAUSE He announces... If Adela Yarbro Collins wasn't aware of this general sense of the word angelos, then that says a lot about the credibility of your soo "modern and respected" scholars.

Do you even know how many times Justin called Jesus God in the Dialogue?

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

Journeyman

Where does the Bible say that the Jesus is "a completely separate being from the Father"?

First of all, how dare you to us the word "being"? PHILOSOPHY!!! ;-)

Of course they are separate persons, but I can't find where does the Bible declare them "completely separate beings". I read in the Bible that the Father and the Son are "one", which of course had to be quickly rewritten in the NWT to say that they are only "in agreement". The fact that it is a distortion of the Bible is one thing, but why would it be considered blasphemy by the Jews? Every person who takes their faith seriously feels that they are "in agreement" with God, so it's not a big deal to say so.

"If Jesus has always existed as a part of a Godhead, he could not possibly be a parallel to Adam."

Only a human can be paralleled with Adam, so this parallel says nothing about what the Son already was from the beginning, before his incarnation. Likewise, your Michael Jesus in heaven could not be compared to Adam without his incarnation. Statements about the human nature of Jesus can in no way be contrasted with his divinity.

By the way, the theology of the WTS about redemption is completely incorrect. Jesus' sacrifice is not equivalent to Adam's sin. They also falsiely put this into to NWT 1Tim 2:6. The original term (antilutron = ransom) only appears here in the New Testament and is just one of many similar expressions that describe the same redemption (Mt 20:28 lutron, Eph 1:14 apolutrosis, etc.). It cannot be claimed that a ransom - in the Bible or in the world - must necessarily be of equal value. Secondly, according to the Bible, God wants to give more than a perfect human life, even if this seems unfair in the eyes of the WTS. According to Paul (Rom 5:12-21), Adam was indeed a precursor to Jesus at a certain point: as sin entered the world through Adam and spread to everyone, so righteousness entered the world through Jesus and was given to every believer (see 5:18-19). However, he continues: "But the gift is not like the trespass (...) God's grace and the gift abounded all the more (...) where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (5:15-16,20).

"Indeed, at death Jesus ceased to exist..."

According to the WTS yep, in the Bible I find nowhere that with his death Jesus "ceased to exist." According to the Apostolic Creed of the 1st century He "descended into the underworld" (hades), within that to Abraham's bosom. Cf. Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:24, Acts 2:31, Eph 4:9, Col 1:18, 1 Peter 3:18-19, 1Peter 4:6.

"..until his Father raised him up..."

The Bible indicates that all three Persons of the Trinity were involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians 1:1 says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. First Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans 1:4, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see also John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we can say God did. And by that we can mean it was the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

“I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.”

Q.E.D.

"How could he be "among the dead" if he was a co-eternal part of a Godhead?"

So that he took on his human nature with the incarnation and will no longer put it down. Ask your bosses this question instead: how could he be "among the dead" if he completely ceased to be a human with his death, and was not actually resurrected, but was recreated, made back simply into an angel?

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

Both 'archē' and 'prōtotokos' are honorific titles for the Son. He himself is the 'archē' and he himself is the 'prōtotokos'. When he uses the same words in the context of "the whole creation" with a genetive, it means the same as, when these titles stands alone, when the NT states that he is the 'archē' and the 'prōtotokos'. The expression 'firstborn' was even correctly interpreted by WTS in another context:

„David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation.”
(Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584)

So if according even to your boss, in a biblical context, the firstborn does not mean the first born in the order, but the pre-eminent heir, then why would it mean anything else in Col 1:15? Just because then you would lose your one-liners?

And the term 'archē' cannot be separated from the connotation it created in the given age, in the given Hellenic world. The Greek philosophers called 'archē' the primordial principle, the source of the created world, the principle from which the world originates. You cannot transfer this connotation to the English term "beginning". This is not a "beginner in time", since He is the BEGINNING himself, the 'archē', the source of creation. This does not make him a creature, on the contrary. Another meaning is: 'ruler'.

"Since when does a simple usage of the verb "was" prove unequivocablly that Jesus is eternal, just by linking it to the phrase "in the beginning"?"

Not by itself from the word "was", but because the prologue of John's Gospel clearly speaks of "the beginning" in the absolute sense, while this cannot be said about the John 8:44 you quoted. John's prologue is clearly about the absolute beginning, since John begins his gospel in a way that is clearly rhymes with the words of the books of Genesis. According to the Septuagint, Genesis 1:1 begins "En archē...", and John 1:1a also harmonizes with these exact words. And in John 8:44 you quote, it says "ēn ap' archēs". No harmony.

Also, it makes "was" without further statement, not in all your other examples. In the begginning. He. Was. Full stop. Thus already existed in the beginning in absolute sence. So John 1:1a just proves that the Logos already in the absolute sense of the beginning 'was', not 'came to be', not created, etc.

"Gen 1.1 tells us (KJV): "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void." The verb "was" is being linked to "the beginning." Was the earth eternal?"

Non sequitur. There it is quite clear that "was" is used after creation. So the Earth used to be 'without form, and void'. Your other example of Gen 10:9 is even more stupid.

The fact that John 20:31 calls Chirst "Son of the God" since when excludes that John 1:1a declares that the Son existed in the beginning?

The other interesting fact that Jesus' words in John 8:58 stongly echoes God's name in Exodus 3:14 (LXX), so the NWT had to distort it :)

The other JW "argument" is that the simply "theos" without article can only be a lesser god, and only "ho theos" can mean truly God (which I don't know where they got it from), then why does Thomas call Jesus "ho theos", according to John 20:28?

I ask you too:

Where does the Bible declare that the Son was created, or that he is a creature? Nowhere.
On the contrary: that he was born / begotten.
Where does the Bible declare that the Son is an angel? Nowhere.
On the contrary, He is superior to all the angels (Hebrews 1)
Where does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: the apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
Does it declare the Son is LORD and GOD? Yes, in many places.
Where does the Bible say that the Son had a beginning in time, and there was a time when he didn't exist? Nowhere.
On the contrary, the Bible writes that even time, the ages (aions), were created by him and in the beginning He already "was".

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

"How do you know what went on inside Jerome’s head? Where’s your evidence?"

For example, from the writings of Jerome? Because I - unlike you - if I want to know what an ancient author thought, I first read his writing, not the opinion of a contemporary author about what he thinks he thought. By the very end of the 4th century, the Arian threat was not significant in the core area of the Roman Empire, as the Arian movements were pushed out to Spain and the Goths (I have already spoken about Wulfila's mistranslation of Philippians 2:6).

Jerome wrote a Prologue to each book of the Holy Scriptures, where he explained his position on its canonicity, the available basic text, and possible translation difficulties. He did not receive, nor would he have received, any instructions as to what theological aspects he should comply with during the translation. His opponent was precisely the school of thought that regarded the Septuagint as inspired, and wanted to see God's providence behind its already obvious mistranslations. Or, for example, Augustine was worried about practical church political considerations, it is indicated that he would cause a break between the Latin West and the Greek Church of the East.

Direct sources about this are still available today, and there is no mention of theological biases anywhere, especially those that would have affected Christology, or the Arian controversy. And I repeat: even the WTS spoke highly of Jerome's work and did not accuse him of theological bias. If you have any direct source that Jerome took into account aspects related to the Arian debate during his work on Bible translation, then bring it up!

I would like to note that this is where the difference between our two positions comes into play. The apostles received the Holy Spirit (Jn 20:22), and the Holy Spirit leads the Church (Jn 16:13, 1Jn 2:27). The Holy Spirit was passed on by the laying on of hands by the apostles (Acts 8:14-17, Acts 14:23, Acts 19:5-6, Hebrews 6:1-2, 1 Tim 4:14, 1 Tim 5:22).

Now, if the true Church has disappeared, then the Holy Spirit has also disappeared, or maybe the Holy Spirit was poured out separately for Russel. Or which successor of the apostle laid his hand on him?

And only the one in whom the Holy Spirit works can speak the truth, and this is only possible if the successors of the apostles communicated the Holy Spirit to him through the laying on of hands.

I would focus on Jesus' promise in Matthew 16:18, which excludes the disappearance of God's church for 1800-1900 years, and the fact is that there is no data to suggest that the theology of the early Christians was even remotely similar to today's JWs. See also Mt 18:17, Mt 23:2-3, Mt 28:20, Rom 3:3-4, 1Tim 3:15, 2Tim 2:13.

If the JW conspiracy theory about the "great apostasy", and the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament etc. were true, then the whole of Christianity is a worthless.

"I’m not saying that Jerome definitely removed “created” from Prov. 8.22 for theological reasons, even though the source you cited said it was motivated by Arianism"

Which of source maintains that Jerome translate 'qanani' as "possedit" in order to prevent Arianisms?

"and even though Jerome complained the world “groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian” in 360 CE."

I let you look after when did Jerome start to translate the Book of Proverbs from Hebrew to Latin. A hint: not in 360. Furthermore, where does Jerome's complaint in 360 relate to the fact that he was guided by this aspect when translating the book of Proverbs?

"You say qana shouldn’t be translated “created”, yet experts in Hebrew do translate it as “created”, including Jewish scholars such as Robert Alter. How are we supposed to judge the situation? Hebrew scholars are wrong and aqwsed12345 is right? On what basis?"

You are funny, at least :-) So it's me and only me against the whole scientific consensus, oh really?. I can play also the same: Who should we trust, Robert Alter or Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, Jerome and the consensus of the Church of two millenia?

But it's not even like that. I would be happy to ask any of your sources (like the counter-WTS apologists asked George Howard) to clarify their views. Namely, a Hebrew word that has many nuances (Semitic languages are quite compact), and you have to select a word from it during the Bible translation, or you have to use a complete circumscription. Okay, let's assume that linguistically it is not inherently acceptable, but even desirable to translate the Hebrew 'qanah' here with the English verb 'to create', although by definition and necessarily the shades of meaning of this English word will not cover the Hebrew verb "qanah". Can you clarify what you mean by that? Is it then possible to build a doctrine on this English word?

Or, specifically, the question I would like to ask any Hebraist, including your sources:

Let's put aside those principles adopted during biblical exegesis, that e.g. it is necessary to take into account the genre of the given biblical book (that you cannot base a doctrine on a poetic book), its place in the revelation, and the Christian principle (which the JWs completely reject) that the person of Jesus and the gospel are the center of the revelation , so in the event of a controversial question, the New Testament interpretation must guide the Old Testament.
Let us assume that the Wisdom of the book of Proverbs is not an allegory, but literally and one-to-one the Son/Logos revealed in the New Testament, so the statements made here regarding Wisdom are to be interpreted as straight doctrinal truths for him.
In this hypothetic case, the Hebrew sentence "YHWH qānānî rêšîṯ darkōw qeḏem mip̄'ālāw mê'āz" specifically grammatically contradictory and excludes, refutes the statement of the Nicene Creed about the Son that "gennethenta ek toú Patrós ..., gennethenta, ou poiithenta"? Really? Yes or no?

Let's continue...

So according to Adela Yarbro Collins, Justin Martyr professed the the Son was "a lesser god", or demigod (even archangel Michael), just like later Arians and JWs do. Unfortunately, Adela Yarbro Collins does not indicate which of Justin's statements she based this opinion on, so it remains a mystery. To me, what Justin wrote personally seems more relevant than Adela Yarbro Collins' uncorroborated opinion of what she thinks Justin really thought. Here you can find some direct quotes from Justin, where you can read directly what he actually wrote.

https://www.bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

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