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

raymond frantz

"If Jesus wa[s] the Almighty there would be an "ὁ" before the word "θεὸς" [in John 1:1c] but there isn't which means that Jesus is just a small god."

Based on what? If John 1:1c said "ho theos en lo logos", that would mean the Logos is the same who was with (thus the Father) mentioned in John 1:1b (so sabellian modalism). That is not a proven stance, but just an invented theological bias that only "ho theos" is true and almight God, "theos" without an article must mean lesser "god", or demigod. There is no such rule, neither gramatically, nor logically. By the way the Son is also called "ho theos" in the NT, and the Father is also called simply "theos" without an article in the NT many times. According to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation, John 1:1c "and the Word was {what} God {was}", the footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:

This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."

By the way, how do you reconcile with Isaiah 44:24 that a "small god" was involved in creation (which the NT states several times about the Son). Additionally Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Psalm 95:5-6.

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

Self-subordination doesn't imply inferiorness in substance, that's why it's also necessary to distinguish if we are talking about the ontological, or about economical relationship of the Father and the Son.

You are misquoting authors the basically the same way the WTS did.

You quoted a couple of people who gave their own opinion, and as we can see, it was enough for me to find the Greek original of the references: no early Christian writer said "the Son is just an angel" or "the Son was made, he is a creature ", etc. The Holy Scriptures do not state this either, and as you can see, neither did the early Christian writers. How can you say that Christians before the Nicene Creed would have held a WTS Christology?

The Trinity is simply the summation and definition of the Scriptural statements that there is one God, but at the same time, as we can see, there is a plurality in it, since it declares about several persons being true God.

For the other position, the Arian definition, it is no coincidence that the falsification and deliberate mistranslation of the Holy Scriptures was necessary.

The Word is of course not God in the sense that he is the same person as God the Father, but he has the same quality (hence of the substance, has the fullness of deity), that's the Nicene definition. He is begotten from the Father before the aeons (which are also made through Him), and He is the eikon and kharakter of the Father's hypostasis. In Jesus, the fullness (pleroma) of "divinity" (theotes, not theiotes) resides bodily, not the fullness of the "divine quality", as the JWs falsely translated it.

The Philippians 2:6 is clearly mistranslated by the Arian Ulfias, and by the NWT. Existing in the morphē of God (has the Bible ever said that about any angel before?), and did not regard as "harpagmos" to BE (einai) equal (isa) with God. What does it mean not regarding/considering something as "harpagmos"? This expression can only be described as something that you cling to at all costs, by force, approx. as Gollum clings to the One Ring "my precious"). So he didn't cling, insist on his equality with God (which he already had), by continuing to stay in the morphē of God, BUT etc.

Ulfias rendered the part "equality with God" to be only "similar" with God. NWT is much worse, it completely distorts the meaing here.

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

Let's check your citation from the First Apology 21 of Justin Martyr:

"Τῷ δὲ καὶ τὸν λόγον, ὅ ἐστι πρῶτον γέννημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ἄνευ ἐπιμιξίας φάσκειν ἡμᾶς γεγεννῆσθαι..."

It was also a self goal, Justin doesn't say here, that the Logos was a creature at all! This text (proton gennēma tou theou) doesn't mean "first created" either, but the opposite: it means the "first-birth", "first begotten", or simply "firstborn" of God. It's terminology rather corresponds the Nicene Creed: "γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς" [gennēthenta ek tou Patros], "γεννηθέντα, οὐ ποιηθέντα" [gennēthenta, ou poiēthenta].

You should look up if there any early Christians who use use the verbs "ktízō", and even more so "poiéō" (or phrases formed from these) for the generation of the Son from the Father, and finally start to doubt the credibility of your sources.

I suggest you to read Newman’s book 'The Arians of the Fourth Century'.

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

LOL, was it a serious question? No, I don't even have a far idea who John Locke was, ehh..

Was he a theologian? If we are talking about history of dogma development, church history, it would be logical, to look up for primary sources, and church historians about the issue.

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

John Locke was not a church historian and his claim is completely baseless.

Of course, driven by various intentions, there are many well-known people who, largely without indicating specific historical facts, suggest similar things to what the JWs do today, that early Christianity, the Edict of Milan and the Council of Nicea was the true, uncorrupted church. And after that it went bad and became evil. Oh really? What about Jesus promise in Matthew 16:18? Even the gates hell cannot take over the Church of Jesus, but according to the JWs, it went totally "apostate" just in a few decades!

Restorianist tendencies are understandably disturbed by the abundance of early Christian literature, which clearly points out that the institution, faith, practice and traditions of the Church are essentially intact and consistent and unchanged for two thousand years. External sources also point to this.

These restorationists claim that the Christians of the apostolic age professed exactly what they do today. In other words, the faith of the churches of the apostolic age was just like that of today's JW (which one? according to the current "light"?). They considered Jesus as the archangel Michael, a creature, thought that Jesus was executed on a simple stake (cf. Alexamenos graffito), referred to God with the name Jehovah, only celebrated the Lord's Supper annually, and believed in a two-class system of salvation, and waited for the 1914 etc., when they were erased from history "just once".

Of course, this assumption is completely unfounded. You can cite quotes, but you won't be able to prove it, because it's a conteo.

Of course, the terminology used to describe the relationship and position of the Father and the Son changed and fluctuated. What words to use, hypostasis, physis, prosopon, persona, ousia etc.. The meaning and nuance of these expressions have also changed by time. This is normal, for example, in English, the word "gun" originally meant cannon, and then took on the general meaning of "firearm".

But it is clear that the earliest Christians declared that Jesus was God, eternal, etc. They didn't make excuses that "oh, he's not really God in the true sense, but really just an angel, namely 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

So let's see the question specifically. There was a total of ONE textual variant, in this case the Codex Sinaiticus, which renders the ominous passage of 3:14 as "the arche of God's church", not "the beginning of God's creation". Well, if you look at the critical apparatus of NA28, it turns out that there were quite a few textual variants of the New Testament, in this case, okay, there was one in this one. And then you (or your selected source), what conclusion do you draw?

1. The orthodox Nicene school must have been "afraid" of the original version. This is completely baseless. The fact that "the arche of God's creation" in the given Hellenic cultural-linguistic environment did not mean at all that he was the "first created being", but rather the primordial principle,, etc. of creation. This was the meaning of the word "arkhe" in the original language, which the English word "beginning" cannot accurately reflect.

2. This text variant was a deliberate, purposeful forgery. And this is the usual JW conspiracy theory, about the evil corrupt church that was willing to falsify the Bible. It was certainly just as random a copyist's error as any of the textual variants seen in the footnotes of NA28. It is typical that he assumes some malicious intention behind everything.

3. There was a central church effort to falsify the Revelation 3:14. Well, the Church has never ordered this, no such church instruction, decree, synodal decision exists, no deliberate mistranslation has ever spread, and the Vulgate officially accepted by the Latin Church did not contain this, nor did the Patriarchal Text used by the Eastern Church.

Well, it is not the Catholics or Orthodox who deliberately falsify the Scriptures, but rather the Arians. The mistranslation of Proverbs 8:22 is not their fault, but an inadvertent mistake of the Jewish translators before Christ, but they persisted in it even after it was revealed that it was a mistranslation of the corresponding Hebrew verb ('qanah', not 'bara') in the appropriate place.

The Arians of the 4th century did not interpret John 1:1c as saying that the Word was only "a lesser god", a demigod, but interpreted this verse by putting a period, a full stop after «God was», and the end of the verse, "the Word" was placed as the beginning of sentence in the next verse.

The Gothic translation made by the Arian Wulfila (Ulfias) is a good example of this, Philippians 2:6, which correctly means "thought it not robbery [harpagmos] to be equal with God", the Gothic Arian Bible has "thought it not robbery to be similar (galeiko) with God".

The NWT is the worst of all these, which clearly and intentionally mistranslates a bunch of christologically relevant verses.

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 assume you work at the WTS headquarters, that's where they do like it. They collect all kinds of half-sentences that can be grasped, put them next to each other, and then our position can be presented as a scientific consensus. That’s false. There are a lot of apologists who went after the WT articles citations, cherry-pickings.

Quotation picking are collected to support a pre-prepared concept, which is usually taken out of context, the opinion of the given scholar is often misrepresented, and the marginal opinion was completely falsely presented as if it were an established scientific consensus tomorrow, like the George Howard hypothesis.

This is a completely dishonest and unscientific method, and in itself is evidence that their position is weak, but it is good for impressing the uneducated in religion with the idea that wow, even Dr. X said that? Moreover, another Dr. Prof. Y?

Your citation says nothing about an intentional distorting of the Rev 3:14 is completely nonsense. Typical JW conspiracy theory, like the alleged removal of the YHWH from the NT. The Vulgate translated the same, since orthodoxy has nothing to “fear” about Son being called the arkhe of the creation. You can check the textual variants in the NA28.

And in many passages of the divine oracles is the Son said to have been born/begotte , but nowhere to have come into being; which manifestly convicts those of misconception about the Lord’s generation, who presume to call His divine and ineffable generation a making, a creation.

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

"You argued that Arians in the fourth century didn’t base their beliefs on scripture."

This is a misrepresentation of what I said: I claimed that they started primarily (not exclusively) from speculation: that it CANNOT be this way (because it is not "logical"), therefore it is not so, and then they also looked for biblical passages for this conclusion. One is the mistranslated Septuagint It was Proverbs 8:22, the other was Colossians 1:15.As far as I know, they did not use Revelation 3:14, because according to them they did not think that being the "arkhe" of creation was the same as the first creation.

The method of today's JWs is the same, on the one hand, based on an unproven assumption, a conspiracy theory, that the YHWH was "erased" from the original manuscripts of the New Testament. On the other hand, what is left is also mistranslated by NWT.

I don't think that "the modern scholarship" (??? everyone? all? some? with full consensus? oh really?) would say that, you gave some excerpted quotes, I assume you haven't read any of their books in their entirety. I have no idea who Maurice Wiles, Rowan Williams, or Karen Armstrong, and how much authority they would actually represent in theology or church history.

On what basis did "modern scholarship" come to a completely new conclusion? Perhaps previously unknown early Christian sources have come to light? They don't describe what they based their conclusions on, and you, as an authority, wave it in front of me.

Well, according to the scientific methodology, you have to start from the primary sources. Have you read through even one entire writing of a single apostolic father? Or do you just collect quotes?

This is also a typical WTS method: quote scissoring. This is the "work" of the Bethel workers, Raymond Franz also described it well, to look for a catchable half-sentence in lexicons that can be flagged: "See? Even he said that!"

Then the discussion partner should run after the resources. Well, no, it's well known, the unfair citation method of the WTS, it was clearly shown when they cited some supposedly "supporting" scholars about the NWT, JW critics asked them, if they really meant it, and it turned out that they really didn't...

"the Nicene/Athanasius faction was prone to using the language of philosophy to define their beliefs in terms of “essence”, something rejected by many as unscriptural."

Yes, this was indeed an argument of the Arian faction, that since the term "ousia" is not found in the Greek Scriptures (which is true), it follows that the theological formula described by this term cannot be true either. Well, this claim would require proof. The term "ousia" indees doesn't appear in the Greek Scriptures, but there are many other terms known and used in Greek philosophy do, such as: pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, etc. So 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.

Furthermore, the Arians also used the concept of ousia to describe their position, when they first described the relationship between the Father and the Son with the concept of heteroousios and then homoiousia.

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

raymond frantz:

"A simple nominative noun lacking the article before the verb, (such as the one found in John 1.1c) usually points to a quality about someone, not "degree of divinity," or identity."

That's what Nicene Trinitarian Christians also means. According to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation, John 1:1c "and the Word was {what} God {was}", the footnote for this verse explains the difficulty:

This second theos could also be translated 'divine' as the construction indicates "a qualitative sense for theos". The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1a; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. This verse is echoed in the Nicene Creed: "God (qualitative or derivative) from God (personal, the Father), Light from Light, True God from True God… homoousion with the Father."

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

Again, you are basing what some modern person said on secondary sources, what they think Justin said. Why don't you go ahead and read only the first 1-2. century Christian writers, the writings of the apostolic fathers, from beginning to end, not their secondary interpretations.