Posts by aqwsed12345

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.

aqwsed12345

BoogerMan

In fact, God Himself is a mystery, since the finite mind cannot comprehend the infinite God. The fact that the trinity is a mystery does not mean that what is in Revelation cannot be understood by reason. The doctrine of the Trinity summarizes the biblical data: there is only one God, but at the same time there are three persons, who by nature are what only God can be, and who do things that only God can do. God is one God in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not meaningless, it is just beyond reason, unprecedented in the created world: God bless you. it does not resemble human ideas (cf. Acts 17:29). Otherwise, the term "Jehovah" or "theocratic organization" is not in the Bible either. 1 Cor 14:33 does not speak about the being of God, but about the need for church order (i.e. he is the God of peace).

"Mystery of faith" (mysterium fidei) in the full sense of the word: every religious truth that the mind, with its sheer natural talents, cannot either determine or understand with its specific concepts. Thus, it contains two components: The mind on its own cannot determine its existence, and even if it has gained knowledge of its existence through revelation, it is subsequently unable to justify it with purely natural reasons; moreover, it cannot define its meaning with specific, but only with analogical concepts. In other words: A mystery of faith is such a religious truth for which the mind on its own cannot determine either that the predicate "must" be asserted about the subject, or that the predicate "can" be asserted about the subject; for example, the one God is three persons; Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist under the appearances of bread and wine. If either of these two components is missing, that is, if the existence of a religious truth can be recognized by reason, but its manner is not comprehensible (for example, God created the world), or its existence cannot be determined by reason, but once we learned it from revelation, its content is already accessible to reason (for example, Christ appointed a head for His Church; there are seven sacraments), then we are not dealing with a mystery of faith in the full sense of the word, a primary mystery, but only with a secondary mystery of faith.

Those who define the mystery of faith as the incomprehensible, indomitable religious truth do not define it accurately. Because there is something incomprehensible, indomitable in every human knowledge; and that is why the deeper-thinking people of every age talk a lot about the depths and mysteries of existence, and praise the docta ignorantia (Nicholas of Cusa). However, this is something entirely different from the nature of the Catholic mystery. The world of nature hides secrets because our mind does not create its realities but faces them as givens and can only perceive them fragmentarily; the mystery of faith, on the other hand, cannot be measured by reason because it is from the higher, superhuman world of realities.

The Bible uses the word "mystery" in two different senses. Generally, it tends to refer to an event or phenomenon in which God and man meet each other, and God gives Himself as a gift to man (Eph 1:9; 3:9-11; 5:32; Col 1:26). The other meaning of the mystery in the Bible is concealment and incomprehensibility (Rom 11:25; cf. 11:33-34; 1Cor 15:51; Rev 17:7). In this regard, theologians categorize the mystery of the Trinity among the so-called absolute mysteries (mysteria absoluta).

The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense is indicated by the Jesus himself when he says: "No one knows the Son except the Father; no one knows the Father except the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Mt 11,27.) John the Evangelist: "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son (the only begotten God), who is in the bosom of the Father, has revealed him." (Jn 1,18) Paul the apostle: "No one knows the things of God, except the Spirit of God." (1 Cor 2:11; cf. 1 Tim 6:16.) Since the Church Fathers Irenaeus and Origen, it has been unequivocally taught that the Trinity surpasses the mind. When the Arians boldly wanted to lift the veil that covers the inner nature of the Deity, their main weapon against their heretical position was reference to the mystery of the Trinity (Iren. II 28, 6; Origen. Princip. IV 1; Athanas. Serap. I 20; Cyril. H. Cat. 4, 7; Basil. Ep. 38, 4; Nazianz. Or. 31, 8; Nyssen. Or. cat. 3; Cyril. Al. Trinit. 3; August. Trinit. IX 1.).

But what does this mean? It cannot be determined by the mere powers of the natural mind that the one divine reality is a trinity of persons.

It's not a posteriori: for the a posteriori proof of God starts from the created world and reaches the absolute being through the thread of causality. It is already a theologically established truth that God's trinity as such is not manifested in creation; for God's external activity is the common work of the three persons: Therefore, the mind does not have a foothold in creation to recognize the one God subsisting in three persons as the absolute being.

And it's not a priori either: we cannot deduce the Trinity from the nature of God known through reason; partly because we do not know the divine reality in a proportionate way, partly because experience does not provide any analogy for a triple relative subsistence of one substance.

But even if we have come into possession of this mystery through revelation, we can neither understand nor subsequently justify it. For even if the analogy of human spiritual life suggests that God's absolute life cannot lack the richness that feeds on the contrast of spiritual activities and life contents, and even if the mind faithfully following the traces of revelation can penetrate a good way into the cloud hiding the Divinity, its laborious thought processes invariably lose their way at three landmarks in the impenetrable fog sea of the mystery:

Initially, independently of the revelation, the mind cannot determine that there are only two categories of spiritual activities and capabilities, reason and will, and hence only two origins are possible in God.

Initially, without revelation, it cannot determine and prove to be necessary that divine life activities are productive; because it is very conceivable from the outset that the object and proportional expression of divine understanding and volition is the independent infinite absolute reality, without the difference of opposing subsistent aspects.

Independently of revelation, the mind can neither determine nor judge it possible that the one divine absolute reality can be the existential content of three subsistent aspects, which are only value-differently from it, but are really different from each other.

While the Trinity is a supra-rational truth, it is not irrational, but completely rational. For the Trinity is God's self-revelation. But God is absolute reason, therefore this revelation is the radiance and evidence of absolute reason. God cannot give anything other than what is his essence. True, the Trinity is a mystery in the strict sense of the word, and therefore the human mind cannot fully demonstrate the logic that this mystery contains. But for this very reason, irrationality cannot be demonstrated from it either. The mind on its own can determine that God is immeasurably superior; this unattainability is always maintained for our mind, whether it reaches for it for understanding or for refutation.

But the mind, illuminated by revelation, can demonstrate in a negative direction that the mystery of the Trinity does not contradict clear arguments, and in a positive direction it can catch a ray of the abundance of light bursting forth from it.

The doctrine of the Trinity could only be shown to be irrational if it contradicted any logical principle, namely the principle of identity and contradiction. But this is not the case. We do not say that the same subject is one and three, but we affirm that the divine reality is one, and the persons are three; or we call the substance one and we state the subsistence as relatively three.

Indeed, the content of the mystery of the Trinity (the triple relative subsistence of one absolute reality) contradicts experience, even the metaphysical findings derived from the material of experience. But its irrationality cannot be inferred from this. For every deeper thinking person has sensed that experience does not exhaust the categories and possibilities of existence, and that is why even within this world, the mind inferring from the present to the past, from the here to the far, is cautiously warned not to hastily infer from non-existence to impossibility. This is particularly true when the mind, leaving the ground of experience beneath itself, rises toward the regions of the absolute Being, where, according to the strict requirement of natural theology, every metaphysical concept must be re-evaluated with the triple method of God-knowledge. Therefore, it cannot be said that the relatively triple subsistence of the absolute Being is irrational; the less so, because reason also determines that God is above the sexes, therefore the Aristotelian categories cannot set a limit to his existential content and mode of existence.

The mind can first and foremost pour its content into systematically processed concepts and thus speak appropriately about it; it can determine which expressions and phrases correspond to the content of the mystery and which do not.

The general rule of speaking about the Trinity is: everything in God is one, where there is no contrast of relations; therefore, if the excellence of nature is the predicate, the subject can be nature or a person; if the predicate is personal excellence, the subject can only be a person. If we now consider that the concrete noun (and the male adjective in Indo-European languages) generally denotes the autonomous reality, the suppositum, hence the person in the doctrine of the Trinity, the abstract noun (and the neuter adjective) denotes the nature, it is generally not difficult to navigate and determine the correctness or incorrectness of a phrase or expression. Thus,

a) we can say that the Father, as well as the Son and the Holy Spirit, are eternal, omnipotent, etc., but we cannot speak of three eternal or omnipotent entities.

b) It is correct: the Son is someone else (alius) than the Father, but not: the Son is something else (aliud). It's correct: the one God is in three distinct persons (in tribus personis distinctis), not correct: the one God is divided into three persons (in tribus personis distinctus), as this endangers the unity of the essence.

c) We can say: God begets, God breathes; the Son is God from God; because the concrete noun signifies the suppositum; but we can't say: divinity begets, divinity is Father. However, often the established language usage decides. The speech of the believer cannot roam freely like that of the philosopher; "our speech must be according to a definite rule, lest the liberty of speech should generate an impious belief about the thing itself". (August. Civ. Dei X 23.) If anywhere, here, in the mystery of mysteries, Paul's warning is appropriate: "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter". (1 Tim 6,20. How much the sealed language usage of the Church decides is a telling example: the Latin Deus triplex is incorrect, but the identical etymon, dreifaltig, threefold is orthodox.)

The believing mind may attempt, in the humble consciousness of its limitations, to illuminate some aspects of the mystery of the Trinity with analogies taken from natural or supernatural life. Of course, it must not forget that in these there will always be more difference than similarity; each one is only good for casting a faint, fading light on one aspect of the mystery. The Greek church fathers used more external analogies: the sun, its light, its ray; in a tree the root, trunk, flower; plant, flower, fragrance; source, stream, estuary; three torches that are ignited from each other (perhaps better: three torches whose flames merge). The newer catechesis and speculation also refer to other analogies: the three dimensions of space, the three moments of time (past, present, future); the three moments of processes: beginning, continuation, end; the three transcendent basic properties: one, true, good; the three basic categories of causality: real, formal and goal-cause (with the last two in relation to the three proofs of God the onto-, nomo-, teleological). The most fruitful analogy, however, is human spiritual life. The Greeks also stayed more on the surface here, as they associated the second divine person, the Word, with the spoken word, the Holy Spirit with the breath. The brilliant mind of Augustine reached the root of spiritual existence, and there he found the purest mirror image of the Trinitarian origins: "The Trinity gives a certain image of itself in the intellect and in the knowledge, which is the offspring of the intellect: the word it says about itself; thirdly, love; and these three are one substance. And the Begotten One is not less, for the intellect knows itself as much as its existence is; and love is not less, for it loves itself as much as it knows itself, and as much as it exists". (August. Trinit. IX 12, 18.)

If we consider any of the aspects that make up the mystery of the Trinity as given from the revelation, we can almost unravel the rest along its thread; a clear sign of how powerful logic prevails in all the relations of the Trinity. For example, if we take this truth as given: there are two fertile origins in God, we can deduce that these origins are immanent, eternal, and substantial, that their product can only be a person and there can only be three persons, two of whom generate the third as one principle.

Finally, the believing mind can reveal the philosophical, theological, and religious significance of the mystery of the Trinity.

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.

aqwsed12345

Wonderment

You can poke fun, but maybe you could know the Bible enough to know that it is not a book of theology, it is not a book of dogmatics, it will not declare it like the Chalcedonian Creed. But he teaches in terms of content: that He was God, and that He also became man. These are two different natures, and by definition, different attributes are associated with them.

It's like having two baskets and a bunch of apples. Red apples go into one basket, green apples into the other. In the Holy Scriptures, statements ("apples") suggesting Jesus' deity go into one "basket" (referring to his divinity), those referring to his humanity go into the other. Christian theology is precisely about the fact that no "apple" has to be thrown out or distorted, as the NWT does, but only put in the right "basket".

So is it sufficient for you, to prove the existence of those two "baskets", or should I prove it in every single statements that which one does it belong to? Or is say: it's purely logical (for example, Jesus suffered, as God cannot suffer, as human he can, so it's meant according to his humanity), you will cry: "It's philosophy!"

Don't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner. Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)

Between theotes and theiotes, that certain letter i means the same thing as in the case of homoousious and homoiousous. The first means deity (godhead), the second means divinity, divine nature, godlike character. So without the "i" it means possessing the very same quality of God, thus being truly and fully God, with it a lesser, similar ("kind of") divine quality. The apostle uses the first.

Let's see the WTS' arguments you were refering to (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

"Colossians 1:19 (KJ, Dy) says that all fullness dwelt in Christ because it “pleased the Father” for this to be the case. NE says it was “by God’s own choice.”".

But the Greek text has no trace of it being the will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai". This fullness is, according to the immediate precedent, the fullness of deity, not some vague, diffusive, and indistinct divine "nature" fullness. Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes, which the apostle does not do.

However, it is clear: you are trying desperately to plug in here this mistranslating divine "nature" so that you can then abruptly turn to the Peter letter, which you are desperately trying to flatten out the divine fullness dwelling in Jesus, stammering that according to Peter, believers also became partakers of the divine nature, and so the divine nature of Jesus is no more than this. These Watchtower struggles are transparent, and they can be nailed firmly to the ground here, where they may continue to wriggle to the great amusement of those who know the Bible.

"In him, and not in the creators or teachers of human philosophies, does this precious "fullness" dwell."

This is awkward, evasive sidetracking: a childish stirring of emotions with buzzwords against the doctrine of the Trinity, which also appeared in philosophical garb from the 4th century. But it took its essential content from the Bible, not from any philosophy.

"Is the Apostle Paul perhaps saying here that the "fullness" in Christ makes Christ himself God? According to Colossians 3:1, no, because here we read of Christ that he "sits at the right hand of God."

This is not a refutation, because here the word God refers to the Father (elsewhere it refers to Jesus). The believers in the Trinity never claimed that Jesus is identical with the Father, and thus sits at his own right hand.

"Being truly “divinity,” or of “divine nature,” does not make Jesus as the Son of God coequal and coeternal with the Father"

But the fullness of deity does.

"Just as "humanity" or "human nature" does not mean that every human is equal or coeternal any more than the fact that all humans share “humanity” or “human nature” makes them coequal or all the same age."

Except that it does mean that in their humanity, all humans are equal, and so in parallel: in their deity, the Father and the Son are equal (Phil 2:6).

The fact that you simply label the concept that time itself is a created reality as "philosophy" (although the New Testament uses many terms used in Greek philosophy), which in WTS terminology has a pejorative meaning (I would rather call it common sense, logical conclusion), doesn't refute it.

I note that what the Watchtower labels with the term "philosophy" is usually nothing more than the use of common sense, logic, and conclusions. Of course, they want to discourage their rank-and-file members from this, so that they don't end up using the particular organ that is in their skull, because "OMG! That's philosophy!" Cf. Thought-terminating cliché

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.

aqwsed12345

Jesus is the firstborn of Mary: it is customary in the Scriptures to call not the one who is followed by siblings, but the one who is born first, the firstborn. Thus, Paul also calls Christ the firstborn Son of the Father (Heb 1:14; cf. Ex 34:19 Num 18:15). Among the Jews, the firstborn is primarily a legal concept; therefore, it also applies to the only child. Firstborn can mean the same as the only child, as Christ is called in John (1:14), because according to the scriptural language usage, the only children are also called firstborns. See Joshua 17:1. According to the Old Testament legal conception, the firstborn, as the future head of the family, has a distinguished position in the family; he receives a larger portion of the inheritance than the other children.

Romans 8:29: it's not genetivie what is used, but look after the "ek" in the Greek text, and of course here Paul is talking about Jesus status according to his Incarnation, when He became human as well, talking about the content and nature of adopted sonship of the saved ones, so it is about Jesus coming into the world so that we too may become children of God. The adoption of a son is the adoption of a foreign person for sonship and inheritance. By grace, God not only adopts a stranger (that is, not born from his reality), but a disloyal, hostile, sinful person; and not just in a moral and legal sense, as it happens among people, where adoption does not give the adoptee any inner value; but in a majestic and mysterious way, it compensates for natural birth, as it grafts the seed of divinity into him, making him not only morally, but physically partake in the divine nature, thus imitating the superiority of natural sonship, the community of nature (so to speak, the blood), so that we are now not only in name, but in reality, the sons of God. As a result, our adopted sonship is a copy, a faithful imprint of the eternal filiation of God. At the same time, we have become brothers of Christ in a very special sense; and it is understandable why it is customary to attribute son-ship adoption to the Father. Jesus Christ, who on the one hand as a man of the same nature as us and the firstborn among the brothers is one of us, on the other hand he is completely pure and holy.

Colossians 1:18 doesn't mean he's the first person to ever die. It means that by His resurrection, He overcame death and made is possible for a new generation of humans called to glorious resurrection (Rom. 8:29). And He took over the power and the primacy over everything.

Colossians 1:15: the apostle intends to express the preeminence of the Firstborn above of the whole creatured world: Christ existed before the entire created world and stands above it. He is the only-begotten before all creatures, and He Himself is not a creature; for He is the cause of existence for all creatures, and therefore cannot be a creature, as it becomes clear from the continuation of the text: He is the Firstborn of the whole creation BECAUSE in Him all things were created. He is heir of all things, and inherits the throne of his ancestor David. By the way if apply this to the Messianic Kingship of Christ, it's meant according to his Incarnate human natura, according to which, He is a creature, even for the Orthodoxy. This interpretation, as we can see, is also compatible with the interpretation of the Watchtower, apparently they only fight because they lose the very few "proof texts".

Athanasius wrote:

Not then because he was from the Father was he called “Firstborn,” but because in him the creation came to be; and as before the creation he was the Son, through whom was the creation, so also before he was called the Firstborn of the whole creation, the Word himself was with God and the Word was God. … If then the Word also were one of the creatures, Scripture would have said of him also that he was Firstborn of other creatures; but in fact, the saints’ saying that he is “Firstborn of the whole creation” demonstrates that the Son of God is other than the whole creation and not a creature. (Discourses Against the Arians II.63)

Ambrose similarly writes:

The apostle says that Christ is the image of the Father—for he calls him the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Firstborn, mark you, not first created, in order that he may be believed to be both begotten, in virtue of his nature, and the first in virtue of his eternity. (Of the Christian Faith I.VII.48)

John Chyrsostom also wrote a long dissertation on this theme in his 3rd Homily on Colossians.

And you misinterpret Origen many times, so it seems I am talking to the wall.

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.

aqwsed12345

Blotty

""it wouldn't hurt to prove first whether it is possible for the whole Church to fall into "great apostasy" and that "true Christianity" is supposed to be restored" - bible prophesy's this..."

No it's not, in fact, the exact opposite was promised, and the verses mentioned by the supporters of the "great apostasy" theory do not justify the disappearance of the true faith for almost two thousand years. I'll copy the substantial arugmentation for you:

Objections with ‘evidential’ verses
Various Protestants invoke certain passages, in order to support the alleged apostasy of the Church. They assert that what the Apostle Paul prophesied in his Epistle I to Timothy has been fulfilled, i.e., ‘in later times, some will apostatize from the Faith, paying attention to spirits of deception and to demonic teachings etc.’ But this passage of Timothy I, 4:1 doesn’t imply that the entire Church was supposedly going to apostatize. The verse clearly says that ‘…….. some will apostatize from the Faith….’, not the entire Church! The Holy Bible speaks of those who will apostatize, in other verses also: “…. With faith and an innocent conscience, which some – after discarding it – became shipwrecked in their faith” (Timothy I, 1:19); “which some, in professing it, strayed from the faith” (Timothy I, 6:21). Furthermore, in Acts 20:28-30, there is no inference that the entire Church is going to apostatize; it only says that “some men will appear, who will teach the truth falsified” (Evangelic translation “Logos”).
The Holy Bible says: “They came forth from among you, but they weren’t one of your kind; for if they were one of your kind, they would have stayed with you. But they came forth so that it might be revealed, that not all of them are one of your kind.” (John I, 2:19). It is obvious that this verse proves that those individuals who apostatize from the true faith DO NOT remain in the Church, but move out of it, thus allowing the Church to preserve its dogmatic teaching unadulterated!
The Church cannot apostatize!
According to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church cannot apostatize: “… the portals of the underworld shall not overpower” (the Church)” (Matthew, 16:18). The Holy Bible also clearly states that the truth shall remain in the Church forever: “...for the truth, which resides in you, and shall be with you for all time” (John II, 2); just as Jesus Christ Himself likewise promises that He shall continuously be with the Church, from the 1st century to the end of time, unfailingly: “I am with you, for all days, until the end of time” (Matthew, 28:80). The Holy Spirit also eternally resides in the Church, continuously, from the 1st century: “And I shall ask the Father, and He shall send you another Paraclete, to remain with you to the end of time” (John 14:16).
Therefore, the Church cannot ever apostatize, because Christ – the head of the Church – remains forever joined to His Body, just as the Holy Spirit remains continuously within it, to guide it throughout the truth (John 14:26), hence the truth must also perpetually reside within the Church! If the Church had indeed apostatized, as various teachers of deception claim, it would mean that Christ had given false promises, which He didn’t keep! But, isn’t that a blasphemous conjecture?
However, some protestants maintain that those promises do apply, but not to the visible Church, only the invisible one! But the Holy Bible doesn’t say that the Church founded by Christ was an invisible one! Quite the opposite, it very clearly talks about a visible Church: “ ….and if someone disobeys them, tell this to the Church; but, if he disobeys the Church also, then you should treat him as a gentile and a tax-collector” (Matthew 18:17). If the Church is invisible, then how does someone speak to the Church, and how does an…. invisible Church reprimand the one who has sinned?
“For I am the least of the apostles, who is unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God” (Corinthians I, 15:9). If the Church were invisible, then how did Paul manage to persecute it?
“For if one does not know how to govern his own home, how shall he take care of the church of God?” (Timothy I, 3:5). How does a bishop take care of an ….. invisible Church?”
These are just a few of the verses that prove that the Church founded by Christ is definitely visible, and not invisible. Consequently, in this visible Church, the promises that it cannot apostatize hold true, and the truth, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit will remain inside it eternally!

* * *

Let's continue:

"Israel fell into a string of idolotry.."

... but not into complete "great apostasy", and of course God did not punish them by handing over the status of the chosen people to another people (back then), but sent them into Babylonian captivity, of course not for two thousand years. God sent prophets to guide and rebuke Israel, not a self-appointed "pastor" from a foreign nation to reinvent the whole true faith from scratch.

"ancient writers statements sound like the trinity because its what the council used as a baseline for the arguments."

To your greatest regret, the early Christian sources even before the Nicene Creed do not teach anything else, and except for the term "homoousious", the Nicene Creed uses only New Testament terminology, and its content is completely consistent with the New Testament: "the Son is begotten from the Father before all aions, not made".

""God could not have had a [masterworker]" -

You should just answer the rhetorical question YHWH God asks in Isaiah 44:24. There is clearly no place for a secondary creator demigod. In the Bible, there is only one Creator, God himself (Genesis 2:4-7, Acts 14:15), and God created everything himself with "his own hands" (Neh 9:6, Isa 44:24, 45:12, 48:13, Job 9:2.8, Psalm 95:5-6), thus alone. Creation is the work of God alone and directly. The Bible clearly states that only God can and does create, and does not use secondary agents, co-creator angels, etc. for this. These statements are explicit and clear, and by the way, common sense also supports this. So there is no room left for the archangel Jesus vindicated by WTS.

"shall I list the trinitarian bibles that" etc.

No Bible translation is inspired, no translation could be used to justify doctrine.

" shall I point out no one even in the council said that proverbs wasnt symbolic of Christ"

Which council said that Proverb 8 is literally about the Son? It's meant as a type (see typology), could be applied to him. First of all, Proverbs is a wisdom book, that's how it shall be interpreted. The Hebrew Bible, from which the Book of Proverbs comes, does not include the concept of God the Father begetting God the Son, as this is a concept from Christian theology, which was developed later.

Arius' view was summarized in their phrase "there was a time when the Son was not." As you've noted, they interpreted Proverbs 8:22, and specifically the verb ἔκτισέ με in the Greek translation (Septuagint), to support this view. Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, rejected this interpretation and maintained that the Son is of the same substance as the Father and is co-eternal with the Father.

It should be highlighted the complexity of Greek and Hebrew words that are often translated into English as "created." In the original languages of the Bible, these words often carried a range of meanings, and their interpretation can greatly influence one's understanding of the nature of Jesus.

Even Jewish translators (Philo of Alexandria, Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus) preferred to translate the verb in Proverbs 8:22 as ἐκτήσατο, meaning "acquired" or "possessed." In the Book of Proverbs, the Hebrew verb 'qanah' (קָנָה) is often translated as 'get', 'acquire', or 'gain' in many English translations, in the Book of Proverbs in all instances, 'qanah' denotes the act of obtaining or acquiring wisdom or knowledge.

Jerome argues that the correct translation of "קנני" (qanani) in Proverbs 8:22 is "possessed" rather than "created." He bases his argument on the distinction between the Hebrew words for "create" (ברא, bara) and "possess" (קנה, qanah). The verb 'bara' (בָּרָא), which means 'create' in Hebrew, is indeed used throughout the Bible to denote the divine act of creating. This verb is exclusively used for divine creation in the Hebrew Bible. It conveys a sense of the initiation of something new, bringing something into existence that was not there before.

But even the translation of the LXX is not suitable to justify Arianism. For instance, the Greek word ἔκτισέ (ektise) does indeed have nuances. While it often means "created," it can also be understood in the sense of "established" or "ordained." ἔκτισέ in the context of Proverbs 8:22 doesn't mean that Wisdom (interpreted as the Son or Christ) was created, in the sense of being brought into existence, but rather that the Son was appointed or established as the beginning of God's ways. Furthermore, discussing the nature of biblical language, especially focusing on the meaning of the term ἔκτισέ (ektise) which is often translated as 'created', it can be argued that in the context of passages such as Proverbs 8:22, this term does not denote creation out of nothing, but rather a form of making or establishing. The Arians used the ἔκτισέ με (He created me) as a proof of their doctrine of the filius non genitus, sed factus (son not begotten, but made), i.e., of His existence before the world began indeed, but yet not from eternity, but originating in time; while, on the contrary, the orthodox preferred the translation ἐκτήσατο (He acquired me), and understood it of the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father, and agreed with the ἔκτισε (He created) 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 (God created me as king or head of his works); Cyrill.: non condidit secundum substantiam, sed constituit me totius universi principium et fundamentum (He did not create me according to substance, but established me as the beginning and foundation of the whole universe)). Thus, the Son is not a created being, but rather eternally begotten, sharing the same divine essence with the Father.

This is further supported by differentiating between the concepts of "made" and "begotten." In Christian belief, "made" implies creation from nothing or from pre-existing materials, while "begotten" suggests an eternal relationship, with no beginning, between the Father and the Son. So, Christ is considered "begotten, not made", which means he shares the same divine nature with the Father and wasn't created at a certain point in time.

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.

aqwsed12345

Blotty

Calm down, mate, take it easy, my goal was not to upset you or to attack you personally, it just annoys me when someone doesn't take the trouble to delve into my thoughts, but instantly "shoots back".

3. "En archē ēn ho Logos" (John 1:1a) - it's not aorist, but simply imperfect indicative of εἰμί (eimi), which is used to show continuous action in the past, meining that the Logos was pre-existing, ongoing "in the beginning". For the aorist of the copula (eimi, "to be") the verb γίγνομαι (gígnomai, "to come into being", "to become") was used, so it would have been "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐγένετο ὁ λόγος". The different form of the Greek words depends on how they function in the sentence. For example, ἐγένετο (Genesis 1:3, 5, LXX; John 1:3), γέγονεν (John 1:3), and Γενηθήτω (Genesis 1:3, LXX) come from the verb γίνομαι (become, to come into existence, happen, be made). When John uses these verbs in the same context, ēn implies “existence” and egeneto [ginomai] implies “coming into being.” For example, in John 8:58, “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was [became], I am.’” Whereas Abraham became (genésthai [ginomai]), Jesus pre-existed (egō eimi).

What is also important here is that "en archē" is exactly the same wording as what we see in the LXX in Genesis 1:1 ("Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς..."), for the Hebrew word “beginning” (בְּרֵאשִׁית, bĕrēʾšît) as an absolute noun “in the beginning”. Prepositional phrases can imply definiteness with the inclusion of the article. John was alluding to the Septuagint usage in Genesis 1:1 which also does not use the article, mimicking Hebrew syntax. So in John 1:1a "in the beginning" by definition means the absolute beginning, when the Logos already "was". Check THIS and THIS and THIS and THIS.

4. God the Father is not needed to be called "firstborn", because because He - unlike the Son - is unbegotten, thus not born. In the Talmud, the title "Bekorah" is used for God, which means "first-born". Don't forget that, according to Nicene theology, the Son received both his existence and his divinity from the Father, but not in time and not in a derivative, separable manner. Just a reminder: "The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten." (Athanasian Creed)

5. You have to indicate specifically what you objected to, otherwise this is called "vagueness" or "lack of specificity". Unfortunately, I still didn't find out which of my statements you specifically labeled "Greek philosophy", nor on what grounds you labeled this. The next question is whether labeling it "Greek philosophy" in itself is enough to push its content aside.

7. "list everything created and where it is called a "creature". Here you are:

Mark 16:15 "the gospel to every creature" (πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει)
Romans "and served the creature rather than" (ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν)
2 Corinthians 5:17 "[he is] a new creature; the old things" (Χριστῷ καινὴ κτίσις τὰ ἀρχαῖα)
1 Timothy 4:4 "Because every creature of God [is] good...") (ὅτι πᾶν κτίσμα θεοῦ καλόν)
Galatians 6:15 "but a new creature" (ἀλλὰ καινὴ κτίσις)
Hebrews 4:13 "there is a created thing hidden before" (οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον)
James 1:18 "of firstfruits of his creatures." (τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων)
Revelation 5:13 "And every creature which is" (καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν)
Revelation 8:9 "third of the creatures which" (τρίτον τῶν κτισμάτων τῶν ἐν)

There are a few more, but I haven't looked them up in all their inflected forms. The other words meaning "to create" in the New Testament are egeneto (see John 1:3) and poieó (for example Romans 1:20 "...what has been made...", κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται). Neither of these are used for the Son in the NT.

You write: "shall we look at the other usages in the lxx where the one called firstborn was not only part of his respective group (sons of, creation etc), but also the first one in a position."

The genitive does not at all mean that he is included, that "the firstborn of the whole creation" does not mean that the Son is among the creatures, any more than "Lord of worlds" means that the Lord is also a world himself, or "the king of the country" means that the king is also a country himself. The genitive in itself expresses a relation, not "belonging" to a group. If you think he always belongs to that respective group, then it doesn't really mean anything good for you if the Son is also the firstborn of the Father, with this logic this just justifies the "homoousios" doctrine, that the Son "belongs" to the same category as the Father, thus God. Or what about Exodus 4:22? If Israel is "the firstborn of the God", then Israel is also God?

"Firstborn" is a title of preeminence or of unique relationship with the Father, rather than suggesting that Jesus was a created being. The Son is eternally begotten, not made or created. I point to the rest of Colossians 1, particularly verses 16-17, which suggest that Jesus, the Son, is not part of creation but is instead the agent through whom all things were created.

"did anyone called firstborn only have pre-emminence and was never born..."

Why should anyone else than the Son called the way the Son is called? Isn't the Son unique? It's not us, who are practically denying the the Son is actually begotten, and not made of the Father.

"in Hebrews 11:17 theres a reason monogenes is used of Issac - he is not eternally begotten as trinitarians would have it "

Lol, here Isaac is not only-begotten Son of God, but of Abraham. Of course only the only-begotten of the God the Father is eternal.

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.

aqwsed12345

I did not "accuse" anyone of having a psychological problem, at most I pointed out that the fact that if it is difficult for him to review a longer text and interpret it MAY also indicate ADHD, for which is a typical symptom. If this is the case, it is not a moral judgment or a stigma, since he is not responsible for it, but it is a serious disadvantage in an intellectual discussion if his attention quickly fades.

Of course, it can not only be ADHD, it can also be the zeitgeist of today, everyone wants quick and instant answers, no one takes the burden to delve into something, the education system is also primitive and dumbed down. A hundred years ago, every school taught Latin, often Greek as well, and now there are only books filled with pictures and in a primitive language. If someone was brought up on this and is used to this zeitgeist, of course it is unusual for them that a question is often more complicated, and requeres more sophisticated answers than parroting like 'Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad'.

The links and studies I referenced above refute Tertullian's abusive and out-of-context citation (typical Watchtowerite dung beetle stategy) that seeks to prop him up in support of a theology he did not actually support.

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.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

There were different orientations and sects, of course, for example within Judaism there were the Pharisees, the larger one, and the Sadducees, the smaller leading party. Although they were in dispute with each other, they basically accepted each other as the representatives of the mainstream Judaism, as opposed to, for example, the Samaritans, Essenes, Gnostics, etc. They were considered heterodox, heretics (minim). Of course, none of these used "Jehovah" in the manner of the Watchtower in the era of Christ, but don't let that bother you.

If you have read the apostolic epistles, you would know that the first heresies were not related to the nature of the Son, but about the continued obligation of the Mosaic law (Galatians-Judaizers), or about Gnosticism. There is no sign of any debate about the role, use, etc. of the Old Testament divine name YHWH being a topic in primitive Christianity. Sources outside of Christianity do not testify to such a thing either, after all, if the Christians had suddenly started "using" the YHWH in various ways, they would have provoked the anger of the Jews, and it would have turned into pogroms. The Romans would also have written about such clashes. But there is no sign of such uproar because of this alleged issue.

I don't understand why you are upset about this, since the Watchtower doesn't object the application of "theos" for the Son, they do not object to the established reading of either John 1:1 or John 1:8 ("monogenes theos"), but of course they reinterpret its meaning to as some kind of "demigod", disregarding the command "thou shalt have no other gods before me". And there is no difference in the fact that according to them Jesus led the Jews out of Egypt, so they can have no problem with any of the readings of Jude 5.

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.

aqwsed12345

Blotty

"way too long not even gonna bother reading"

The fact that you might have ADHD and find it difficult to interpret long texts is not my fault.

"90% of what you say is inspired by Greek philosophy"

Specifically, which of my statements are you making this claim about, and on what basis do you claim that this specific statement of mine was actually "inspired" by Greek philosophy?

I note that the apostles do not seem to have shared the WTS's abhorrence of "Greek philosophy", since the terminology of the New Testament is full of terms that are frequently discussed in Greek philosophy, such as pleroma, logos, arkhe, hypostasis, physis, and even also "aieon" discussed here. According to this: the apostles were not at all averse to the use of terms and concepts that had their own precedents and parallels in Greek philosophy as well.

If you had read through what I wrote, you would have found many biblical references.

I note that what the Watchtower labels with the term "philosophy" is usually nothing more than the use of common sense, logic, and conclusions. Of course, they want to discourage their rank-and-file members from this, so that they don't end up using the particular organ that is in their skull, because "OMG! That's philosophy!" Cf. Thought-terminating cliché

But if we're making accusations of association our debate partner of "Greekizing", I would like to note that instead of pure theism, the image of the God of the Watchtower is much more similar to ancient Greek polytheism. Because they take literally the antopomorphistic descriptions of God found in the Old Testament, their image of God is like that about how a 4-5 year old kind imagines God: literally sitting on a chair above the clouds, with a white beard, watching him, and getting mad at him if he eats the chocolate that mommy forbade him. The Christian image of God teaches the absolute timeless and transcendent nature of God, God himself is the unchanging pure being (actus purus).

"multiple scholars have refuted the "was" argument"

If it really is "multiple scholars have refuted" this, then it will surely not be difficult for you to name one in particular. I'm curious to see who that famous "scholar" might be.

"the different words are easy to explain if you would just look at their usage in the NT"

It is quite sad that if this has to be "explained", especially when the Watchtower claims that their theology is "clearly", "plainly" taught by the Bible (then why do they need the FDS?). think it would be more appropriate if you thought about the rhetorical questions asked in the first chapter to the Hebrews.

"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? [...] Are they not all ministering spirits?"

So where does the New Testament use the terms 'ktizo', especially 'poio', for the orign of the Son from the Father? Huh? Where does he say that he is a creature (ktistheis), a creature (ktisma) or the first creature (protoktisma or protoktisis)?

"Note the word for first-created was not in common use until the days of the LXX - first created and firstborn have parallel meanings"

This is a total self-goal: the "firstborn" means distinguished, preeminent heir in biblical context. This is even supported by what your bosses wrote, open it up:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200011483

"David, who was the youngest son of Jesse, was called by Jehovah the “first-born,” due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God’s chosen nation and his making a covenant with David for a dynasty of kings. (Ps. 89:27) In this position David prophetically represented the Messiah.—Compare Psalm 2:2, 7 with 1 Samuel 10:1; Hebrews 1:5. Jesus Christ is shown to be “the first-born of all creation” as well as “the first-born from the dead.” (Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5; 3:14)"

So even on the basis of their publication (Aid to Bible Understanding p. 583-584) it can be supported that the statement in Colossians 1:15 that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" does not mean that he is the "first created being", but that he enjoys the status of the "firstborn", being in preeminent position as distinguished heir in relation to the whole creation.

So the standard interpretation of this verse just seems fine for the Watchtower as well, if it is not to be abused as a "one-liner" "proof text".

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.

aqwsed12345

Earnest

"the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

However, if the burden of proof is on you, since it was you've claimed something, then the lack of evidence means that you have failed the case. Unfortunately, speculation and conspiracy theories hardly substantiate the claim.

The most important evidence here is that "Jehovism" was completely alien to the theological climate of the original New Testament church, just like it was to the mainstream of Judaism in the time of Christ, from which the church simply inherited it, adopted it, as neither Christ nor the apostles ever objected or adressed this practice, which already was an accomplished fact.

The divine name YHWH simply has no role in the Christ-centered New Testament order of redemption, it already fulfilled its function for the period after the Babylonian captivity. The function of the divine name YHWH was to educate the Israelites freed from Egypt to strict monotheism, which was no longer a question.

Although the divine name YHWH is also sacred to Christians, to "use" it in the Old Testament manner, specifically in the First Temple era manner, is an anachronistic Judaizing heresy. To claim - as the Watchtower Society does - that this was the original mainstream of the primitive church is an absurd claim without any evidence. Still less can speculation regarding the name YHWH justify the Arian heresy which demotes the Son to an angel, a creature, a made being.

It is even more ironic that even though the WTS followers "use" the name "Jehovah" in every way, they just don't understand its original meaning and function in the time of the First Temple: to educate them to a strict and absolute monotheism, to always remind that God is "who is", who exists, so he is the absolute Being. Instead, JW's image of God isn't even regular theism. Because they take literally the antopomorphistic descriptions of God found in the Old Testament, their image of God is like that about how a 4-5 year old kind imagines God: literally sitting on a chair above the clouds, with a white beard, watching him, and getting mad at him if he eats the chocolate that mommy forbade him. The Christian image of God teaches the absolute timeless and transcendent nature of God, God himself is the unchanging pure being (actus purus).

For this the legend of the "Great Apostasy" is needed for the WTS to justify its very existence: that the Church became completely corrupted just after a few decades after the apostles, so it must be invented again basicly out of nothing by some self-proclaimed pastor (Russel) opening the Bible on his desk to find out what the "true", "original" Christianity was like. This is quite a bold claim, and even an arrogant attitude to approach the Divine Scriptures. However, if the Church could fall into apostasy two thousand years ago, then Christianity is worthless. Jesus clearly promised that the Church would be indefectible, thus remains intact until He returns. There is no mention of a millennial pause for the true worship in the New Testament: on the contrary.

Check these:

- The Church NEVER apostatized
- The significance of the name “Yahve”

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.

aqwsed12345

slimboyfat

And it would be all the wiser if the WTS apologists would keep their mouths shut in this regard until such a manuscript is found. Once they find one, we can talk about it. The fact that a number of hitherto unknown manuscripts have been discovered in recent centuries weakens your position: according to them, among thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts, there is not ONE single one that indicates any kind of deliberate falsification of the Bible, especially in this regard.

There is no direct or indirect source or evidence for this, only speculation and conspiracy theory. Maybe these evil "apostate" copyist did such a perfect job? Maybe I've been watching too many crime dramas, but I guess there is no such thing as a perfect crime. Do you think so? Jesus seemed to say that the truth cannot be hidden. Or as Seneca's famous quote says: "The truth never perishes" (Veritas numquam perit)

But let's suppose that such a "Jehovist" New Testament manuscript were to be found, but what would that prove? That this was the original reading of the apostolic autograph, the Urtext, and "using" the name "Jehovah" was the original church mainline of the Christianity? Well, because JWs not only claim that there could have been such a reading, but also the latter. However, this would not be far from proving this!

It is even possible to imagine in principle that there was a minor heterodox Judaizing-Hebraizing sect among some Jewish Christians, that inserted it into the text because they thought it "should" be there. Read up on who the Ebionites were. If the WTS wants to associate itself with such a Galatian-Judaizing trend instead of Pauline Christianity, I would not discourage them, this would befit them. Or Irenaeus (d. c. 202) reports that the Gnostics, and Valentinian heretics used Ἰαῶ (Iao), but there is no sign that there was ever such a "Jehovist" trend in the original, primitive mainline church.

Interestingly, no one claims that in the apocryphal Gospels of the Ebionites, or the Gospel of the Hebrews, there was any kind of YHWH, and where such a thing could be imagined, it is precisely these.