Posts by slimboyfat

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

Hurtado’s view on the matter evolved and he came to accept that the early LXX used the divine name. In his most recent post on the subject (in agreement with the leading specialists on the topic Emanuel Tov and Anthony Meyer) Hurtado correctly stated that the practice of replacing the divine name with kyrios took place in the second century CE.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/yhwh-texts-and-jesus-a-follow-up/#comments

It’s also worth noting the first century fragment of Leviticus with the divine name transliterated as Yaho (4Q120) was described at publication as an excellent representative of the early LXX tradition. This form of the divine name is the same as that which survived in early Christian name lists called onomastica showing that it was in use by the early Christians.

263

What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?

by Vanderhoven7 in

it seems to me scripturally speaking, that jehovah's witnesses are emphasizing the wrong name.. it should be jesus, not jehovah.

who is the way, the truth and the life?

(john 14:6).

slimboyfat

You are right there is a contradiction between claims that the text has been transmitted accurately and the claim that the divine name stood in the original. So what? We’re not here to defend the JW position on every point. Let the evidence fall where it may. For my money the evidence is strong that the divine name was in the original text and was replaced in the second century. If that means the text has not been faithfully preserved, then so be it. A number of scholars have come to the conclusion that the divine name was in the original New Testament and give compelling and, in fact, very interesting reasons supporting that view. The lack of curiosity to explore this discovery, as Lloyd Gaston says, is striking in its neglect.

Can we quit talking about shadowy conspiracies? That is empty rhetoric. The fact is that the divine name was in the Septuagint in the first century but Christians replaced it with “Lord” when they transmitted the text from the second century onwards. Those who argue for the divine name in the original New Testament simply point out that the exact same thing happened in the New Testament that we know happened with Septuagint. There is nothing extraordinary or mysterious about it. If we know that something happened on Monday then it rings hollow to say it’s a wild conspiracy theory that anyone should suggest the same thing happened on Tuesday.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

I think LE sees that the channel is in decline and he doesn’t have the motivation to carry on producing content with no mates to help him fill the hours of content necessary. So what does he do? He’s lost interest in JWs but he still has over 400 people sending him money every month. He’s not going to turn down free money, ever. So he perfunctorily keeps the channel going with the minimum amount of effort to keep it ticking over. He has half a notion that expanding the channel to include other topics will broaden his appeal but he probably suspects that will be a failure too. So he’ll just ride the ship all the way down until he finally runs out of patrons, or until there are so few patrons that it’s not even worth the effort to keep up the pretence any longer. The suckers are the patrons who jump ship last.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

slimboyfat

His interviews are unwatchable. He gets interesting people on the channel then proceeds to talk most of the time himself. Jim Penton was a case in point. Wasted opportunity and waste of viewers’ time.

Well, used to get interesting people on his channel. Not so much any more, for obvious reasons.

42

ANTI-DEPRESSANT medication for the last 60 years now proved to be based on poorly supported false theory

by Terry in

jw
friends

"the chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals, and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades.

the general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities, and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood""read: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m92v7hb0njm2mnvnu6nv0kpnkzloe-_k4crh_wphpti/edit?usp=sharing.

slimboyfat

We live in a capitalist society. Drug companies exist to make a profit not to make people well. Unfortunately the two objectives are rarely the same. If there is a choice between a treatment that will cure a condition and a treatment that will maintain a condition for years or even decades then the current profit driven model will choose the maintenance therapy every single time. This is not a malfunction of the system, this is the system operating exactly as designed. In fact if a company chose to prioritise anything other than profit then they would be criminally responsible to their shareholders. Just think what a complete disaster it would have been for pharmaceutical companies, after spending billions of pounds on vaccines, to discover that the condition could be treated effectively with cheap drugs. We don’t know what the truth is because we are not scientists and I don’t pretend to know the answers. But the drug companies own the media that cover the health stories and they fund the politicians who make the decisions about funding involving billions of dollars. We are at a disadvantage because we are not scientists and we don’t have all the information they have at their disposal. But we can recognise the situation we are in and the powerful interests involved in securing certain outcomes and making sure certain perspectives prevail.

Personally I think the way forward for individuals is to look to community collaboration using sites such as “stuff that works” which aggregates the health experiences of thousands and millions of people to try to work out from the grass roots which treatments are effective and which are not effective. I believe the drug companies and governments could do the same thing more effectively, in particular harnessing the powers of the latest artificial intelligence, but it is not in their financial interest to do so.

7