@Nincsnevem:
I'm just going to hit the main points fairly quickly because I have other duties that beckon me.
Nincsnevem: "you laid the foundations / established... are the work of your hands" = you created, simply in more poetic form
EF: My beef was more with the scope of what's created than the fact of creating/making. I will get to that below.
Nincsnevem: "the earth and the heavens" = 'ha-shamayim ve-ha’aretz' in Jewish context simply means means ‘the world' (olam, kosmos), so all the creation, cf Gen. 1:1.
EF: I've seen you make this claim multiple times but it's debatable: Genesis 1:1 could be describing the material universe/world and not include the spirit realm. I could look up a source but everything I see created in Genesis 1 is material or physical--not spirit.
Previous EF: "Without the Father's appointment, the Son would not have such authority."
Nincsnevem: If you mean that if there were no Father, then there could be no Son (although this is a conceptual impossibility, since God is a necessary being), then this is trivially true. If you mean that the Son is not necessarily begotten of the Father, and that his deity and role in the creation are accidental free decisions of the Father, then no.
EF: The first option is trivially true indeed although it contains the component that God is a necessary being. God could be necessary in one sense but not in another: I understand God to be necessary insofar as God exists a se rather than ab alio, that is to say, necessity pertains to his existence and I agree that Father and "Son" (or child) are necessary correlates (like the angels being "sons of God"). However, I'm with Tertullian, Lactantius, and Novatian as well when they argue that God "became" a Father by generating his Son. Tertullian says there was a time when the Son was not but God was not Father then either: Origen thinks differently about the matter.
What I'm noticing is that the Bible in more than one place indicates that the Son only shares in creating/making at the Father's behest and not due to his own willing. With respect to the Son literally being "begotten," that point is implicit at best, and even some Trinitarians will contend that eternal generation is not a biblical teaching. The Bible does not clearly articulate any such doctrine and I take the Son's begettal to be metaphorical.
Nincsnevem: And it should be seen that according to verse 10, this certain "dia" is not some second-degree, contingent, accidental, "demiurge"-like role, so the Son is just as much a creator as the Father. If there are no demiurges, one is either fully Creator, or not at all. By the way, this whole artificial distinction and even juxtaposition of "by" and "through" is linguistically unfounded, and it also just shows how wrong it is exegetically, that after you have translated the text into English, you are already thinking in English. This distinction does not exist in Greek ("dia"), Latin ("per", cf. "por" in Spanish), and is not so sharp in the Germanic languages either. It's like the "von" + Dative, and "durch" + Accusative in German. "Durch" corresponds to the English "through", only the latter can be used for an impersonal agent, but if it's used in the case of a personal agens, it does not mean that the contribution of the person marked in this way is secondary, accidental or inferior either.
EF: The Son is never called "Creator," let's document that fact first. Secondly, God creates through/by the Son per the Gospel of John, Colossians, and Hebrews. The Son is no more Creator than a child who helps his father (a watchmaker) in the construction of a watch is a watchmaker. Now I don't know the exact role that Christ had in shaping or building the cosmos but we JWs believe that God's purposing, arranging, knowledge and willing brought forth the universe and the cosmos resulted from the activity of God's dictates and his holy spirit. Either way, I don't think you would consider a child or even an apprentice to be the maker of a watch or the builder of a house just because he/she helps. Compare Hebrews 3:4.
EF: Are you saying that the "by" and "through" distinction doesn't exist in Greek/Latin or that one cannot appeal to dia to sustain that distinction? More later on this point. And I know about Latin phrases like per impossibile, per diem, per capita, per definitionem, etc. They seem to sustain the by/through distinction.
EF: As we've talked about before, ancient Hebrew also distinguished the principal from the agent with the shaliach concept. G.W. Buchanan did a fine study on the subject and George R. Beasley-Murray made some perceptive remarks on the subject.
Nincsnevem: Since anyone who is not God almighty cannot play any kind of role in creation (since creation is an absolute, first-class miracle that only God is capable of, and a predicative quality that cannot be communicated to a creature), this is only possible if the Son is one God with the Father. Of course, we already know this, that the Son possessed the fullness of the Deity/Godhead, so what would be lacking from the Son to be as much God as the Father?
EF: Did the Son always possess the fullness of the Deity/Godhead? Does he possess it at his own pleasure or at the pleasure of another? Third, are there things the Father knows that the Son does not know?
EF: "Hebrews 1 does not deal with Christ's sacrifice? See Hebrews 1:3."
Nincsnevem: It is only briefly mentioned, but the main theme of chapter 1 is not this, but the supremacy of the Son in contrast with all the angels. Christ's high priestly role will be explained in detail in the rest of Hebrews.
EF: Yes sir, I know the main theme of chapter 1 is not Christ's sacrifice or priesthood but that was not your exact comment earlier. You did not make that distinction. Moreover, I well know when the author of Hebrews starts to discuss Christ qua high priest: I've read Hebrews a time or two in my forty years of Bible study and my memory isn't completely gone yet. :-)
Chapter 8 of Hebrews is a beautiful discussion of Christ qua high priest, but I know that chapters 2, 3, 4-5 likewise talk about the Son of God in this way.
Nincsnevem: By the way, the church father most often cited by JWs is Origen, in this regard, why don't you consider his interpretation of this ("today I have begotten you")?
EF: One problem is that I find no contextual or philological support for Origen's interpretation of "today I have begotten you." Unknown made a great point about those words coming from Psalms 2 and originally being applied to a human king, who clearly was not begotten eternally. I'm also not in love with Origen's Platonizing tendencies.
EF: As a side but related point (obiter dictum), have you ever thought about the locus classicus for the quote in Acts 13:40-41 and the potential implications that verse has for your view of Hebrews 1:10?
With respect to dia, by/through, please see the following:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/02/one-of-my-favorite-books-is-emil.html
BDAG remarks here: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-etymological-significance-of.html
Note what is said about dia at this link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dia-#:~:text=From%20Ancient%20Greek%20prefix%20δια,%2C%20by%2C%20over”).
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/dia
What the distinction tells us about the agent is another matter.
Got to go, au revoir.
27 comments:
"Genesis 1:1 could be describing the material universe/world and not include the spirit realm."
In Genesis 1:1, "erets" is not the planet Earth, that is this globe, but the physical, visible world, and the "shamayim" is the spiritual, invisible world, including its "inhabitants", the angels. This is clear from Colossians 1:16: "things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible".
Or where do you think the Scriptures speak of the creation of angels?
"God "became" a Father by generating his Son."
I will answer this in a little more detail: we argue a lot about which verb is correct to use to describe the origin of the Son: begotten/begotten or created/created? These are just words and expressions, which, by definition, can only illuminate the underlying content in an analog way due to the limitations of language. How is the former different from the latter?
1. What was created was created at a specific point in time.
2. What is created is changeable, therefore subject to temporality.
3. What is created is ontologically infinitely inferior to the creator.
4. The creation of creatures is the result of God's free decision, it was not necessary for God to create anything.
5. Creation is from nothing (ex nihilo), while the begotten is from the substance of the begetting.
When we emphasize that the Son is born/begotten of the Father, not created, we also emphasize that the Father necessarily "begets" the Son, but creates creatures freely. So the eternity of the Son's generation must be emphasized (the main argument of the Arians was that the begotten is later than the begetter); also the necessity of this generation (according to the Arians, God could not be "forced" to generate, so the Son is from the free will of the Father, i.e. he was created), which, however, differs from blind compulsion as well as from the free determination of creation; finally, its substantial and spiritual character (for according to the Arians, generation involves division), which is compatible with the absolute simplicity of God.
Therefore, the Father has always been Father, if he had not been, it would also contradict the principle of his immutability. God cannot "become" something that was not, since everything that He is, has always been so.
"the Bible in more than one place indicates that the Son only shares in creating/making at the Father's behest and not due to his own willing."
Where does the Bible "indicate" that the Son's "involment" in the creation is just accidental?
"With respect to the Son literally being "begotten," that point is implicit at best, and even some Trinitarians will contend that eternal generation is not a biblical teaching. The Bible does not clearly articulate any such doctrine and I take the Son's begettal to be metaphorical."
Of course, the Son is not literally "begotten" on "born", as it is understood in the human world, but since God speaks to us in a human fashion in his revelation, he uses such an analogous term for the origin of the Son. The words "Father" and "Son" are human expressions too. Anyone who does not believe in eternal generation is not a Trinitarian. The Bible does not give a statement with doctrinal precision, but it gives all the information on the basis of which it can be summarized.
Well, of course, I can retort with this, where do you think it describes the "creation" of the Son by the Father?
"The Son is never called "Creator," let's document that fact first."
This can be stated just as much as He is not called a creature, nor Michael, nor an archangel. However, the Bible declares that he "established" the heavens and the earth, which are the same in content.
> As a side but related point (obiter dictum), have you ever thought about the locus classicus for the quote in Acts 13:40-41 and the potential implications that verse has for your view of Hebrews 1:10?
I'd like to know more about this
"God creates through/by the Son per the Gospel of John, Colossians, and Hebrews."
Yes, without a doubt, the Holy Scriptures also describe the Son's participation in creation with the prepositions "dia", "en", but what you wrote afterwards does not follow from this:
"The Son is no more Creator than a child who helps his father (a watchmaker) in the construction of a watch is a watchmaker."
Where does it become clear that the Son's creative contribution is secondary, inferior, of a "helping" nature? This is precisely the role of a demiurge, which is already excluded by the OT's declarations of absolute monotheism and anti-henotheism.
"Either way, I don't think you would consider a child or even an apprentice to be the maker of a watch or the builder of a house just because he/she helps. Compare Hebrews 3:4."
Of course not, but it would be necessary to prove here that He only "helped" in the cration, and the verse you quoted would also proves that the one who creates, needs to be actually God. Well, how do you reconcile Hebrews 1:10 with 3:4 (namely Isaiah 44:24), if the Son is not real God?
"Are you saying that the "by" and "through" distinction doesn't exist in Greek/Latin or that one cannot appeal to dia to sustain that distinction?"
This is not the problem here, but that you automatically assume a secondary "helping" role from "through", even though this does not follow even in English. For example, "I'll send documents by mail" means exactly the same as "I'll send documents through mail."
So there is no sharp difference between the two, they are often interchangeable.
At the most, it follows from the "through" that the Son did not create alone (as opposed to "by", which might suggest this), but it does not mean that his creative contribution is essentially inferior.
"Did the Son always possess the fullness of the Deity/Godhead?"
Yes, one either possesses the fullness of the Deity/Godhead from the beginning, always and inseparably, or never and not at all. It's not like a coat that you can put on and take off at some point. So it is not that the Father begat the Son and then by a separate act at some point conferred the deity upon him.
"Does he possess it at his own pleasure or at the pleasure of another?"
He received it from the Father, but not through a free decision based on his mood and passion, but out of substantial-ontological necessity. "Pleasure"... sounds pretty adoptionism.
"are there things the Father knows that the Son does not know?"
According to JW theology, the Father is not inherently and actual omniscient either (just has ability to foreknow, which he exercises selectively according to his will), so based on this, even if the Son did not know something, it would not exclude him from being a real God based on your logic.
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf103.iv.i.iii.xii.html Here, Augustine parallels the statement "neither the Son, but the Father" with Genesis 22:12 ("Now I know that you fear God").
Besides that, this is where human nature comes into play too.
"I find no contextual or philological support for Origen's interpretation of "today I have begotten you.""
Not only he interpreted it this way, but also Tertullian and many other early Christian writers, so we can appreciate this as an apostolic tradition.
"those words coming from Psalms 2 and originally being applied to a human king, who clearly was not begotten eternally."
I do not think that this messianic psalm was literally and actually applied to a king ever, and besides that it is not unusual for NT authors to use OT quotations in other contexts and in other senses. So, the fact that in Psalm 2 it did not mean eternal generation does not exclude that the apostles could not have applied it to the Son in this sense.
"Where does it become clear that the Son's creative contribution is secondary, inferior, of a "helping" nature?" - Do you read the Bible or just the church Fathers? I get the feeling its 90% everything but the Bible then the trinity proof texts, someone who knew their Bible wouldn't be talking like this. (Just like they miss that it wasn't only Paul that called Jesus "Wisdom")
" but that you automatically assume a secondary "helping" role from "through"
- because the majority of the time that's what it means, except when it emasn source, But Vines clarifys this for us.
Daniel Wallace (Not a JW, doesn't like them infact) ADMITS that "the writers thought the source was the father (ek autou) The son was thought of having a "hands on" role (Dia)"
"one either possesses the fullness of the Deity/Godhead from the beginning, always and inseparably, or never and not at all." - Huge assumption, slightly misleading and not according to Col 1:20 - WHy was God pleased to have all fullness dwell in him, if he didnt have it before, this si what you say when it has been given, not when it hasn't
sidenote Edgar: This person assumes "beginning" means "In eternity" (essentially)
" and the verse you quoted would also proves that the one who creates, needs to be actually God. Well, how do you reconcile Hebrews 1:10 with 3:4 (namely Isaiah 44:24), if the Son is not real God?" - notice the pronouns in Hebrews 1:2? Where "God" is the antecedent to the verbs "elalēsen" "ethēken" & "epoiēsen" showing it was someone else acting "through" the son, as God did when teh law was given by Moses
" the Father is not inherently and actual omniscient either" - this is a misunderstanding of JW beliefs.. more a reflection on you than them
"Besides that, this is where human nature comes into play too." - according to you, Christ could switch between those natures tho.. So it doesnt follow that he wouldnt just say he "didnt know" when the other nature did.
" so we can appreciate this as an apostolic tradition." - yes because many people who say the same thing are right...taking majority opinion is a danger
"it did not mean eternal generation does not exclude that the apostles could not have applied it to the Son in this sense." - its doesn't exclude it, but it puts the burden of proof on you to prove the doctrine, as other catholics are wary of it and say its not actaully supported in the bible.
whoops wrong place.. sorry Edgar could you move that to: https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2023/09/reply-to-nincsnevem-about-hebrews-12ff.html
Anonymous, I can copy and paste it there later. Might be in the afternoon due to my schedule
Dages, my comment about Acts 13:40-41 just pertained to the issue of Bible verses having an original application but then being reapplied in the NT. For example, the words that Paul utters in that account come from Habakkuk 1:5ff. They were originally said to the Chaldeans, but Paul applies the words to how people respond to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's not the only time that a verse is reappropriated by the ancient Christian ecclesia.
Anonymous, this blog has been giving me fits here lately about copying and pasting to the combox. Sorry, but if you could possibly resubmit the comments, I will approve them. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljRfvyTjHvE
""Where does it become clear that the Son's creative contribution is secondary, inferior, of a "helping" nature?" - Do you read the Bible or just the church Fathers?"
Did you mean this as a serious question? I attribute primacy to the interpretation of the writings of the church fathers, but I do not consider their reasoning methodology to be infallible. This must be a big riddle for you, who based on your conspiracy theory about the "great apostasy" must start from the fact that everyone was gone anstray for 1,900 years.
"I get the feeling its 90% everything but the Bible then the trinity proof texts, someone who knew their Bible wouldn't be talking like this."
How you "feel" is pretty irrelevant. Obviously, all trinitarian theologians, church fathers, etc. and besides you, everyone else doesn't know the Bible...
"Just like they miss that it wasn't only Paul that called Jesus "Wisdom""
"Calling" Jesus "Wisdom" is not the same as the notion that he is *literally* the same as the personified wisdom of Proverbs 8, so the figurative speech found there is suitable for supporting doctrine.
The messianic references in the OT are either completely clear (e.g. Isaiah 53) or, if not entirely clear, the New Testament clearly relates them to Christ (e.g. in Acts 2 in Peter's speech, etc.). However, Provrbs 8 was never applied to Jesus in the NT, and Solomon does not suggest that we should see more in the chapter than a description of wisdom. Therefore, although identifying it with Jesus seems like a nice parallel (cf. typology), it definitely lacks a biblical basis. The 9th chapter reveals why the description of wisdom so closely resembles Jesus (e.g. those who follow wisdom find life and receive grace, etc.). Here's what Solomon writes: “The fear of the LORD [YHWH] is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Proverbs 9:10). Thus, finding wisdom is nothing other than fearing and knowing God. In the New Testament, the way to do this is through faith in Jesus. That's why the description of Wisdom is so similar to the role of Jesus. Based on the Prostant principle (cf. 'sola Scriptura') that the Bible explains the Bible (rather than 'tradition explains the Bible'), Wisdom here is not Jesus, but as Solomon identified it: a behavior characterized by the fear of God and the pursuit of knowledge of God. However, it's interesting (and even sad!) to see the kind of theology people can build on a verse (i.e. that Jesus has a (temporal) beginning), and they do all this with a verse that is not even about him, especially not literally.
"" but that you automatically assume a secondary "helping" role from "through" - because the majority of the time that's what it means"
The preposition 'dia' does not imply inferior contribution at all, it does not mean "with the help of" but "by the means of". 'Dia' also used of the Father (Hebrews 2:10; Romans 11:36, and Galatians 1:1, where it is used of both). Hence, as Godet remarks, it "does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument," but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son. So there is no inferiority implied by ‘through,’ as if the Son were a mere instrument, is shewn by 1 Corinthians 1:9, where the same construction is used of the Father, ‘through Whom ye were called, &c.’ Compary Colossians 1:16 with Romans 11:36.
"Daniel Wallace (Not a JW, doesn't like them infact) ADMITS that "the writers thought the source was the father (ek autou) The son was thought of having a "hands on" role (Dia)""
"Admits"... you could skip this triumphalist remarks based on your dung beetle method, anyway, "dia" does not imply an inferior contribution than the "para". "Dia" can also denote a source, especially since the Son is the "arkhe" of creation for the creatures, the importance of which is not diminished by the fact that the Father is the "arkhe" of the Son and his deity.
"Col 1:20 - WHy was God pleased to have all fullness dwell in him"
In addition to the fact that the Nicene Christology also affirms that the Son received both his existence and deity from the Father (however, not in time and not in an accidental way, which can be peeled off from him, in an ontologically inferior way), the Col. 1:19 cited here by the Watchtower, the Greek text has no trace of it being an accidental will of the Father, on the contrary, the Fullness wanted it that way: "hoti en autō eudokēsen pan to plērōma katoikēsai" (there is no "theos" or "pater" in the text). 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.
"if he didnt have it before, this si what you say when it has been given, not when it hasn't"
The text does not indicate that this communication of the fullness (of the deity) happened at a certain point of time, especially accidentally and in a way that could be removed from him.
"notice the pronouns in Hebrews 1:2? Where "God" is the antecedent to the verbs "elalēsen" "ethēken" & "epoiēsen" showing it was someone else acting "through" the son"
Now you are either attacking Modalism, or you still haven't understood that the "dia" or "en" does not denote a mere instrument, does not imply ontological inferiorness, or if you still don't understand, look up what Perichoresis is and what soteriological cooperation means in Trinitarianism.
"" the Father is not inherently and actual omniscient either" - this is a misunderstanding of JW beliefs.. "
Not at all, look it up, in JW theology, God did not know in advance that Adam and Eve would sin, so it came as a surprise to him.
""Besides that, this is where human nature comes into play too." - according to you, Christ could switch between those natures tho.."
It is not a "switch", but two different, and both legitimate aspects. The 'I' on his lips could equally mean his divinity as well as his humanity. As God, he was equal to the Father, in fact, he was one with him in the deity; but as a man, he was obviously lesser than the Father.
How can a man be God? Only by the divine personality also adopting human nature, almost dressing in a human body and soul; but while doing so, he naturally remains who he was from eternity: God, the only-begotten, eternal, divine Son of the Father. This dual nature is expressed by the word 'God-man' or in other words: the 'Word made flesh'. How could finiteness and infinity, human frailty, and divine perfection be united in Jesus? It would only be contradictory if the divine and human attributes in Jesus had melted into one nature and thus mutually corrupted each other. However, this is not the case. On the contrary: Jesus remained fully God and at the same time fully man. In his human nature, he was small and weak, but in his divine nature, he was infinite and omnipotent. In his humanity, he became like us in all things except sin, but in his divine nature, he always stands far above us. In his human form, he was born, grew, learned, tired, hungered, thirsted, cried, sweated, suffered, died, and resurrected; in his divine form, he was the embodiment of eternal unchangeability. All of this did not cause any contradiction or rift in him but, on the contrary, they wonderfully complemented each other.
"So it doesn't follow that he wouldn't just say he "didn't know" when the other nature did."
This is a mistake, with so much power he could not have said anything that was only true for one of his natures.
"" so we can appreciate this as an apostolic tradition." - yes because many people who say the same thing are right...taking majority opinion is a danger"
The acceptance of the apostolic tradition is not justified by submission to some kind of majority principle, but rather by the promise of Jesus that not even the gates of 'hades' can prevail against his 'ekklesia', and consequently heresy cannot gain control of the Church, so the view that the Church professed, it cannot be heresy, but quite the opposite.
""it did not mean eternal generation does not exclude that the apostles could not have applied it to the Son in this sense." - its doesn't exclude it, but it puts the burden of proof on you to prove the doctrine"
No, the burden of proof is on the person who came along later and claims we were wrong for 1,900 years, and now you, out of nowhere, claim to have "restored" the "true" Christianity from scratch. So it is precisely you who should prove that the traditional interpretation of Hebrews 1:5 is wrong, and it is not enough that it was used in a different sense in Psalms 2, since the apostles put the OT quotes in a new context countless times.
"as other catholics are wary of it and say its not actually supported in the bible."
What some modernist-liberal Catholic theologians say, I am not interested in the least.
"Now you are either attacking Modalism" - no not at all, read my claim again, and I didnt "attack". I dont "attack" religous beliefs..
"This is a mistake,with so much power he could not have said anything that was only true for one of his natures." - So his Human nature also knew the "time and the hour" tho Jesus' own words say he didnt?
"you still haven't understood that the "dia" or "en" does not denote a mere instrument" -
Stongs concordance
Vines
BDAG
ALL DISAGREE - look up "dia" on Biblehub and its explanation.
"ek autou" generally means "source"
Dia can in certain contexts mean source, however the majority of the time it means agency..
" God did not know in advance that Adam and Eve would sin, so it came as a surprise to him." - I know what you will quote, that is a distortion of what is written. If your going to keep being willfully ignorant I just wont engage.
Not because I give up, simply because it is useless to engage with a person who has to be willfully ignorant to "win" a debate
" and consequently heresy cannot gain control of the Church, so the view that the Church professed, it cannot be heresy, but quite the opposite." - you sure about that? you havent read what The bible said then have you?
Im sure Edgar knows the verses Im referring too, where it says something along the lines of "false teachers being AMONG christians and [people] will be lead stray" (paraphrase)
"on the person who came along later and claims we were wrong for 1,900 years, and now you, out of nowhere, claim to have "restored" the "true" Christianity from scratch."
- I never claimed such a thing, so can you not put words in my mouth?
and as Edgar stated that is NOT what witnesses state.
your honesty is getting worse and worse.
your lack of proving things is pure delusion on your part, if you have the truth - you should be more than willing to share it when someone asks you to prove a claim..
Because that is your Job as a christian.
"What some modernist-liberal Catholic theologians say, I am not interested in the least." - and i know why...
Most what you call "modernist" catholics also refer to the church fathers, they are just more level headed and logical about what was written and consider ALL possible meanings and the most likely, not insist that their belief must be right because it apparently existed 1900 years ago..
"the "great apostasy" must start from the fact that everyone was gone anstray for 1,900 years." - how many times do I need to say, i do not hold that position..
"Obviously, all trinitarian theologians, church fathers, etc. and besides you, everyone else doesn't know the Bible..." - you make the claim not I, this was directed at solely you, no one else.
"However, Provrbs 8 was never applied to Jesus in the NT" - this could be disputed, as even you must admit it is paraphrased.
It should also be noted that prov 8, has something different to all the rest of the references of it, for a long while.
"The preposition 'dia' does not imply inferior contribution at all" -read my claim again, I never said anything about "inferior"
Do you not read? I have admitted 3+ times dia CAN mean source.
". you could skip this triumphalist remarks based on your dung beetle method" - capitialisation is for emphasis, not triumph...
I could say the same about you..
"In addition to the fact that the Nicene Christology also affirms that the Son received both his existence and deity from the Father " - you will have to elaborate and prove how? they are both temporal terms.
What "existance"?
What "deity"?
" Your denomination is trying to restrict this to some undefined attributes" - I quote myself "I am not a Jehovah's Witness and never have been" - so I respectfully ask you dont lump me in with a group I am not apart of..
"The text does not indicate that this communication of the fullness (of the deity) happened at a certain point of time" - I would beg to differ.
" especially accidentally" - where do you get this? It was obviously a willful action.
" in a way that could be removed from him." - not sure what you mean by this either - "deity" doesnt inheriantly equal being God, are the angels not divine?
"Now, it is striking the way that “Wisdom,” who speaks in Proverbs 8, is assumed by both Athanasius and the Arians to be the Lord, the eternal Word of the Father. If Athanasius and the orthodox theologians of Nicaea simply argued that this isn’t Jesus speaking, the work would have been substantially shorter. However, they were convinced from the text itself that this Wisdom is Christ Himself, as St. Paul says, “Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:24)."
(https://witness.lcms.org/2021/parsing-the-proverbs-with-st-athanasius/#:~:text=Athanasius%20on%20Proverbs%208%3A,truth%20of%20a%20right%20explanation.)
One of just many sources that say something different that what your saying...
https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64223/according-to-catholicism-who-is-the-wisdom-being-described-in-proverbs-822-36
""This is a mistake, with so much power he could not have said anything that was only true for one of his natures." - So his Human nature also knew the "time and the hour" tho Jesus' own words say he didn't ?"
I didn't say that he knew the "time and the hour" in terms of his human nature, but from what did you draw this conclusion. Jesus' human knowledge was limited and he learned new things, see Luke 2:52, Hebrews 5:7-9. At the same time compare: Lk 2:46-47, Jn 2:25, 4:19,29, 16:30, 21:17, Col 2:3, Mt 25:31-45, Hebrews 4:12-13.
I recommend reading: https://justpaste.it/bc9hl
The Greek preposition "dia" does not mean that the Son is not the source of creation, but that it is a chain: "from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit", as the ancient creeds also say. As Godet remarks, it "does not lower the Word to the rank of a simple instrument," but merely implies a different relation to creation on the part of the Father and the Son. So there is no inferiority implied by 'through'. If you want to write around, it doesn't mean "with the help of Him", but "by the means of Him".
https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/dia.html
"" and consequently heresy cannot gain control of the Church, so the view that the Church professes, it cannot be heresy, but quite the opposite." - you sure about that? you haven't read what The bible said then have you?"
Yes, it is in the Bible that the Church cannot apostatize: "... the portals of the underworld shall not overpower her (the Church)" (Matthew, 16:18). The 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" (2 John 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 permanently 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!
"the verses Im referring too, where it says something along the lines of "false teachers being AMONG christians and [people] will be lead stray" (paraphrase)"
1Timothy 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 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” (1 Timothy 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”
"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.” (1 John 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!
None of the quoted verses claim that these false teachers will take control of the Church. These verses only say that "there will be" such false teachers too, but it does not claim that they would successfully take over, and in fact suggests the opposite. Did the "true church" not even try to protect itself from these false teachers? Did it take over under the broom of a couple of heretics? Is this what the work of the apostles is worth? What did thw supposed "governing body" in Jerusalem do? Did it capitulate in the first minute?
"and as Edgar stated that is NOT what witnesses state."
Oh really?
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2003641
"Jesus expected his congregation to *disappear* from view and that he would allow such a sad situation to continue for centuries."
"Soon after the death of the apostles, apostate teachers from within the congregation began to take control of it."
"As predicted by Jesus Christ, his genuine disciples were hidden from sight as counterfeit Christians flourished."
"they no longer made up a clearly identifiable, visible body, or organization."
And all of this is derived from a PARABLE of Jesus, which does not say a word about the fate of the church or the victory of false teachers, while not even addressing to the relevant Matthew 16:18.
""What some modernist-liberal Catholic theologians say, I am not interested in the least." - and I know why..."
This is because it is fashionable to come up new fancy ideas among the scholars, "wow you don't say!", and these liberal theologians most often do not even believe in the inerrancy of the Bible or hold other heretical views, they serve the expectations of the secularized world.
"don't insist that their belief must be right because it apparently existed 1900 years ago.."
Anyone who thinks like this is not a Catholic, even if he claims to be one, but a heretic. Vincent of Lerins developed a formula to determine true doctrine from false. “All possible care must be taken,” he said, “that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.” Therefore, only that can be true teaching in which there is doctrinal continuity.
""The preposition 'dia' does not imply inferior contribution at all" -read my claim again, I never said anything about "inferior" Do you not read? I have admitted 3+ times dia CAN mean source."
Then the Son can be said to be no less a creator than the Father.
""In addition to the fact that the Nicene Christology also affirms that the Son received both his existence and deity from the Father " - you will have to elaborate..."
See:
"Whatever the Father is or has, He does not have from another, but from Himself; and He is the principle without principle. Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle. Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son. But the Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one principle, just as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not three principles of the creature, but one principle." (Council of Florence)
"they are both temporal terms."
All actions in the created world take place in time, this is a conceptual necessity, but this principle valid for the created world is not true for the processes taking place within the immutable Godhead.
"Now this expression which we employ — that there never was a time when He [the Son] did not exist — is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words "when" or "never" have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages." (Origen: De Principiis 4:28)
"What 'existence'? What 'deity'?"
His existence is that he is begotten of the Father, while the Father is begotten of no one. And his deity is the fullness of the divine substance, essence, which he possesses equally with the Father.
"" especially accidentally" - where do you get this? It was obviously a willful action."
It seems that you did not realize that the term "accident" I used here, is not the ordinary, but the theological-philosophical concept, Latin 'accidentia', here it refers to the fact that the Son's deity does not necessarily arise from his begetting from the Father, but from Father gave it to him as if out of passion.
"" in a way that could be removed from him." - not sure what you mean by this either"
That the deity of the Son was not put on by a separate act of arbitrary will, like a coat that is put on, but can be taken off.
""deity" doesn't inherently equal being God, are the angels not divine?"
Angels do not possess the divine nature, unlike the Son, who is equal to the Father in that he equally possesses the divine essence, inasmuch as the Father has communicated his entire substance to the Son.
http://www.livingwater-spain.com/beduhn.pdf
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2019/11/jesus-christ-as-intermediate-agent-of.html
See also the comments of Emil Brunner concerning hupo: he was far from being a JW, but he agreed that the NT teaches something different about Christ's role in creation.
Or according to another interpretation
'para' = indirect principle
'dia' = direct principle
without one being inferior to the other.
oh no, ninc - you haven't done your research on the author of that article have you? He is very dishonest in his evaluations.
"Then the Son can be said to be no less a creator than the Father." -
Heres a question: What condition is present when dia is the source vs when it is not?
Lets see how far your Greek knowledge really goes.
"is not true for the processes taking place within the immutable Godhead." - bible citation? this is Greek philosophy, not a biblical teaching.
"the theological-philosophical concept" - idc about "theological-philosophical concept" I go by real meanings not "made up" meanings.
"1Timothy 4:1 doesn’t imply that the entire Church was supposedly going to apostatize." - the WT never stated this either.
"Jesus expected his congregation to *disappear* from view and that he would allow such a sad situation to continue for centuries." - disappear from view is not disappearing as in non-existant..
If something is not in view it is cast a side. Not extinct.
"Soon after the death of the apostles, apostate teachers from within the congregation began to take control of it." - there are multiple ways to interpret this.. however based on other statements, your position is the least likely.
"As predicted by Jesus Christ, his genuine disciples were hidden from sight as counterfeit Christians flourished." - again hidden from sight, doesnt mean extinct.
"they no longer made up a clearly identifiable, visible body, or organization." - sure ok, still doesnt say it was extinct..
"while not even addressing to the relevant Matthew 16:18." - knowing what your like, your leaving off critical information that I am not aware of.
(an actaul witness can deal with this, if they want)
"This is because it is fashionable to come up new fancy ideas among the scholars" - is it? ones i look at tend to come up with ideas for a possible meaning to a text.. I think your more thinking theologians, who are not scholars.
Ones I quote from dont really come up with ideas - Just give it how it is, or half the story.
"“that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all.”" - I question the meaning to the words "always "and "all" and what he meant, not what your trying to make out he mean't.
(this is the correct one, ignore the last)
"you haven't done your research on the author of that article have you?"
Which author? Beduhn? Here are some resources on his book:
* https://shorturl.at/cHRW0
* https://t.ly/3RRuT
* https://shorturl.at/beqrR
"What condition is present when dia is the source vs when it is not?"
The contributing role described by the preposition 'dia' (or 'en') is no less, no inferior source than 'para' or 'ex', only while the former is the direct principle, while the latter is the indirect principle.
""is not true for the processes taking place within the immutable Godhead." - bible citation?"
Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19, Psalm 102:25-27, Isaiah 43:10, James 1:17, Hebrews 13:8.
"this is Greek philosophy, not a biblical teaching."
And this is a genetic fallacy, the fact that something is derived "philosophically" does not follow from the fact that the opposite is the biblical teaching. It would be enough to ask: where is it stated in the Bible that YHWH God is temporal and alterable?
"disappear from view is not disappearing as in non-existant.. If something is not in view it is cast a side. Not extinct."
The article confusingly states that he disappeared (ceased to exist) or just went into hiding. And then why was there no "hiding" in the 1st century, and then not again from the end of the 19th century?
Contrasted with this is Matthew 5:14: "You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hidden." Jesus compares the apostles, i.e. the Church, to a city built on a hill. This image is incompatible with the idea that the Church is invisible (even for while). The Church, also according to this image, is a unified, visible and universal community that cannot be hidden, since it lives in the world and bears witness to the rule of God, and it is also its duty. See also Matthew 10:27.
"there are multiple ways to interpret this.."
This can be interpreted in one way: the false teachers took control of the church established by Jesus and built by the apostles and completely pushed out the alleged proto-JWs. Read this: https://t.ly/1zB1L
"hidden from sight, doesn't mean extinct."
However, this is just an empty pretense, an ad hoc hypothesis that they were there somewhere, only there is no sign of it at all. See Hitchens's razor.
""while not even addressing to the relevant Matthew 16:18." - knowing what your like, your leaving off critical information that I am not aware of."
I would now only focus on the second half of the verse, how the teaching of the NT about the fate of the 'ekklesia' can be reconciled with the fact that the true "ekklesia" did not actually exist visibly throughout world history.
""This is because it is fashionable to come up with new fancy ideas among the scholars" - is it?"
Yes, this is also called publication pressure.
"""that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."" - I question the meaning to the words "always "and "all" and what he meant"
It means visible and demonstrable doctrinal continuity within Christianity.
Post a Comment