by Perry 114 Replies latest watchtower bible
Perry, like Bowman and Hoffstetter from the old JW-evangelical debate site, champion in misapplied texts and interpretations. Usually it gets down to Paul's anti-semitic diatribe that 'God has placed a veil over their eyes' aka they don't agree with me so we'll throw them under the bus.. that was always professor Hoffstetter's last trick to pull out of the hat.
Texts like 1Tim.3:15 can make any claim they wish, it was a new religion in the making, they were making it all up as they went along!
The issue on 1 Tim 3:16 is just one of many problems with the Westcott and Hort Minority text as opposed to the Majority text accepted for hundreds of years before their influence.
For a comparison of differences between the Minority and Majority Greek texts as it relates to the Deity of Jesus, see my research here.
On 1 Tim 3:16 - it does not say "God was manifest in the flesh". Look at an interlinear.
Look at a Majority Text Interlinear and you will find it there.
The problem is with any new religion there are bugs to work out and whoever has the most political and social power wins in a particular region by declaring all opposing views Heretic.
This split the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox from the Church of Rome and later the Protestants.
Because it was all being made up on the fly dozens of competeing ideas flourished from Spain to Western China and Russia to North Africa.
Hundreds of fulfilled prophecies are not something that can be made up on the fly, we don't live long enough to pull something like that off.
Professor Schirrmacher, like many Evangelicals, are bent on 'proving' the hidden Trinity in the Jews Bible. The 'echad' and 'we' stuff. Rabbis over the centuries engaged the Bishops of the Church of the West in debates pointing out the error of this position.
A thorough read of Paul's Epistles like Romans, Corinthians, Colosians, Hebrews show the subtle and blantant extent to which Paul lied about what Jews believe to build his new religion on a supposed Jewish-Messiah. Nothing could be further from sound scholarship.
Thankfully, most of us have learned since the Wt to just read the bible ourselves, like the Isaiah 53 text, and make up our own minds.
Perry:
Hundreds of fulfilled prophecies are not something that can be made up on the fly, we don't live long enough to pull something like that off.
Entirely untrue. It's much easier to look at source material (supposed 'prophecies) and make up fulfilments than it would be to actually recognise actions as 'fulfilling' an ambiguous passage of an ancient text. This is especially the case where there is absolutely no evidence of any eye-witnesses to the alleged events and a largely illiterate public.
If you are reading Isaiah 53 with any view to the Jesus of the Gospels being the Jewish Messiah then it shows you have not studied it with a Rabbi.
The NT was just a clever attempt to fool the Gentile population who had little knowledge of Judaism and could be buffaloed by anything presented to them. Rabbis over the centuries pointed this out to the Bishops.
Perseus and Mithras got a new Makeover....
Yes, the the old text was accepted for hundreds of years - we have done some reading since then, thankfully.
But, it is not just Westcott and Hort, it is also the text produced by N/A and UBS. But, this won't matter to you, I'm sure, if you've decided scholarship peaked 500 years ago and has been declining ever since. Not much that I can say.
Curious, isn't it, that no ante-nicene father, that no writings during the Arian controversy, reference this text at all? Might be an important scripture for Athanasius to point out, no? Also curious, that no early versions render it this way and not a single early manuscript. Strange how it only pops up in the late fourth century. Even more strange that such as Wallance, Robertson, modern trinitarian translations such as NIV, NAB, ESV, TEV, and dozens more reject theos as genuine.... doesn't matter?
Thank-you for your research, it shows pretty clearly that you choose the KJV because it fits your bias, not because you have concluded it is the most faithful witness.
Conclusion > Evidence - backwards, friend, backwards - Evidence > Conclusion
Perry just wants to believe so badly, I almost feel sorry for him.
