Posts by slimboyfat

73

"Jehovah" In The New Testament.

by LostintheFog1999 in

i see they have updated their list of translations or versions where some form of yhwh or jhvh appears in the new testament.. https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/appendix-c/divine-name-new-testament-2/.

slimboyfat

You can read the argument in favour of the divine name in the original New Testament here:

http://www.areopage.net/howard.pdf

Notice that George Howard linked the removal of the divine name from the New Testament with the post-biblical conflation of Jesus with God, ultimately leading to the Trinity doctrine.

Modern scholars that argue for the divine name in the original New Testament are:

Gaston, L. (2006). Paul and the Torah. Wipf and Stock Publishers

Howard, G. (1977). The Tetragram and the New Testament. Journal of biblical literature, 96(1), 63-83.

McRay, J. (2008). Archaeology and the New Testament. Baker Academic.

Mussies, G. (2001). YHWH at Patmos: Rev 1: 4 in its Hellenistic and Early Jewish Setting (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2.107).

Schottroff, L., & Janssen, C. (2021). 1 Corinthians. Kohlhammer Verlag

Shaw, F. (2014). The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iao. Contributions to biblical exegesis and theology, 70.

Trobisch, D. (2000). The First Edition of the New Testament. Oxford University Press

Vasileiadis, P. D. (2019). Jesus, the New Testament, and the Sacred Tetragrammaton. Synthesis, 8(1), 27-87.

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

slimboyfat

Well I’ve not found much in the way of disproving the threat of AI so far. It’s not cranks or doom mongers who are raising the alarm, but experts who work on it and understand AI best. Geoffrey Hinton says he disbelieved AI disaster scenarios during nearly 50 years of research, and only changed his mind within the past year when he realised the new models were advancing far quicker than he anticipated. Steven Pinker presented a shallow and ill informed overview of the AI topic in his book Rationality.

https://youtu.be/yQE9KAbFhNY

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

The messages are too long aqwsed12345.

I think Raymond Franz was overly critical of his uncle. After all, Fred Franz did produce his own translation of the entire Bible, stimulated debate about the place of the divine name in the NT text, and perhaps prompted some to reconsider how they translate John 1.1. Those are no mean feats. I think he deserves some credit, as even some of his scholarly critics begrudgingly admitted.

JWs believe that Jehovah created the world through Jesus because that’s what the NT says repeatedly. God is the only creator and Jesus is his agent. Origen expressed it similarly:

And the Apostle Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “At the end of the days He spoke to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, 'through whom' also He made the ages”, showing us that God made the ages through His Son, the “through whom” belonging, when the ages were being made, to the Only-begotten. Thus, if all things were made, as in this passage also, through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos, but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, ii.6
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101502.htm

11

Rebekah Vardy--UK channel 4 : Tuesday 16th 10.00pm.

by stan livedeath in

summary.

the subject of the `wagatha christie" trial investigates the inner workings of the jehovah's witnesses.

having grown up within the faith, she explains how the religion failed to support her through sexual abuse and shunned her as a child.

slimboyfat

I don’t know, but isn’t her testimony clouded somewhat by the most farcical untruths she told in court in the trial against Rooney’s Mrs? Her story was so bogus the people covering the trail couldn’t understand why she brought the case (at great expense to herself) or why she thought anyone would believe the incredible things she was saying.

* disclaimer - all I know about the trial is what I picked up from the news bulletins on Radio 4, while driving around, and therefore probably wrong. The news presenters at the time seemed to treat it as a bit of fun. One person they interviewed said they could only understand the whole trial as a very expensive gift from Vardy to contribute to ‘the gaiety the nation’ at a difficult time. (I think the Tories were swapping Prime Ministers or something at the same time.)

3

New Material Available in the Study Bible

by Wonderment in

new material available in the study bible.

new material has been added to the study edition of the new world translation of the holy scriptures on jw.org and in jw library.

this release features new media gallery content.

slimboyfat

Interesting video on the wall in the temple. This is good material they are producing. Mainstream scholars sometimes connect the removal of the wall in Eph 2.14 with the bringing in of the “other sheep” in John 10.16, but JWs don’t make that link because they identify the “other sheep” as non anointed Christians, rather than Gentile Christians.

The article on the corruption of 1 Tim 3.16 to support the Trinity, complete with manuscript photo, is pretty good too.

I’m a bit disappointed they haven’t released the notes for Hebrews yet. It’s taking ages for them to complete the Study Bible for the New Testament alone. Goodness knows if they’ll ever compete the OT.

Interesting that they’ve added yet more J references. These sources are getting pretty obscure now, citing manuscripts in rare collections and so on. Back in the early days, when there were only a couple of dozen J references, some of them were items that a regular JWs could purchase and consult themselves. Not so with the rare ones they’ve been coming out with lately - there are a couple of Welsh translations thrown in too, although one of them digital only at this point. Why are they going to such extreme lengths to track down and document these rare New Testaments that use the divine name? I think they’ve proved their point already that other translators have used the divine name when translating the NT. Is there much utility to adding yet more to the list? Somebody at bethel seems to have gone to a lot of effort to find these rare items. Maybe it’s somebody’s full time job. Fred Franz used to rely on the first few J references as a loose guide, or at least corroboration, when making his own judgement about where to use the divine name in the NWT. I don’t think the 300+ versions they now have listed can reasonably be used that way. The entries these days mention the divine name was used a few times and so on. I wonder if they are going to the same lengths to collate all the instances of the divine name in each of the sources, as they used to. Again, that is a huge workload. (Although I guess AI will soon be able to do the whole lot.)

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

You are bending language beyond what it can bear.

If a parent tells their child they have to obey their teacher just as they would obey their parent, the point is that the parent is telling the child that they have to do as the teacher says because the parent is giving the teacher that authority. It does not mean that the teacher now has equal parental rights. The very fact that the parent extends authority over the child to the teacher demonstrates that ultimate authority rests with the parent.

To read into the phrase “honour the Son just as they honour the Father” as you do ignores the meaning of the statement in context and transports it into a foreign fourth century world of dogmatic distinctions between nature and substances and persons that the apostle John knew nothing about. Jesus says that every authority and honour he has is because his Father gave it to him. The lie that the Trinity teaches is that these honours belong to Jesus by his own right. Every statement in John 5 contradicts that notion.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

aqwsed12345 you do seem to have plucked John 5.23 out of its context as if it implies Trinitarian dogma. Trinitarians believe that three divine persons are equally deserving of worship because they are all eternally supreme. What does the passage actually say?

19 Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own but only what he sees the Father doing, for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing, and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished. 21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. 22 The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and does not come under judgment but has passed from death to life. 25 “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and is now here when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be astonished at this, for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out: those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.

The point of honouring the Son is to honour the Father who sent him.

The context provides a radically different picture than the selective quotation of half of verse 23 in isolation. Notice 1) the Son “can do nothing on his own” 2) the Son copies the Father 3) the Father shows the Son how things are done 4) the Father has “given” all judgement to the Son 5) the reason people should honour the Son is because they thereby honour the Father 6) if you fail to honour the Son you are not honouring the Father who sent him 7) the Father has granted the Son to have life in himself 8) God has given Jesus the authority to judge.

In every single statement the superiority of God is maintained and the role of Jesus as subordinate and obedient to God is emphasised.

James McGrath explains the significance of an agent representing a ruler in that culture (again, this quotation is representative of McGrath’s work as a whole):

When someone sent an agent, the agent was given the full authority of the sender to speak and act on his behalf. If the agent made an agreement, it was completely binding, as if the person who sent him had made it in person. Conversely, if someone rejected an agent, he rejected the one who sent him. The agent was thus functionally equal or equivalent to the one who sent him, precisely because he was subordinate and obedient to, and submitted to the will of, him who sent him. James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in its Jewish Context (2009), 59.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

I defy you to identify any quotation above where I haven’t fairly represented the opinion of the scholar quoted. So your comparison with Watchtower quotes with half the sentence missing is misplaced.

I referred to Paula Fredriksen as arguing that the phrase ‘in the form of God’ means that Jesus was a lesser divine being that God. That is what Fredriksen argues, in detail, and consistently, and the quotation I made fairly reflected that.

Paul Holloway argues, on the basis of a huge amount of linguistic and historical data, that Jesus is presented in Philippians 2 as an angelic being who came to earth as a man. Again, that is his argument throughout his commentary, and my quotation fairly reflected that.

Maurice Wiles argues that Arians have been misrepresented and that they based their theology primarily on the Bible. To the extent that they used Greek philosophy, their Trinitarian counterparts did the same. That is his argument throughout his book.

James Dunn argues that the first Christians did not worship Jesus in the highest sense because they believed that only God should be worshipped, and Jesus was distinguished from God. How he managed to square this with Trinitarian practice I am not sure, but he seems to have struggled with it. His honest scholarship on this point is appreciated.

These scholars are just pointing out what the Bible texts actually say about Jesus. That it happens to contradict Trinitarian dogma is a reasonable inference from their work, it is not the purpose of their work.

I was reading an article earlier today about Origen’s use of the word ktisma (creature) to describe Jesus. The author states, as a passing observation, that, “it seems clear that Origen took Prov. viii 22 and Col. i 15 as meaning what they say.” - a succinct, no fuss, and accurate appraisal of the plain meaning of those scriptures.

https://academic.oup.com/jts/article-abstract/os-XXXIX/153/39/1662566?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

I wonder what you make or scholars like James Dunn in that case. As far as I can make out he was a Trinitarian Christian and remained a Trinitarian Christian to the end of his life. Nevertheless his honest historical study of the NT led him to conclude that the conception of God as a Trinity was a later development, that only God was worshipped in the highest sense in the NT, and that Jesus was separate and subordinate to God. That’s not just a quote here or there, that’s a fair reflection of what he wrote as whole.

Catholic scholars, such as Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer, can be very illuminating too because, unlike Protestants, Catholics can tolerate the fact that the Bible doesn’t necessarily present a fully Trinitarian view because they rely on tradition in addition to the scriptures. Raymond Brown and Joseph Fitzmyer seem to have had a degree of freedom to admit where the Bible says things that are inconvenient. For example Raymond Brown’s discussion about where Jesus is and is not called God is quite illuminating because he narrows it down to fewer passages and with narrower meaning than many Trinitarians would like.

Paula Fredriksen is Jewish but her scholarship (it should hardly need to be said) ought to be judged on its merits. Any fair appraisal of the competing reconstructions of early Christology by Fredriksen and Hurtado, for example, would conclude that she makes better sense out of the available evidence.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

slimboyfat

I wonder, doesn’t it give you any pause for thought that scholars who are not tied to any theological position tend to interpret NT Christology in a way that is closer to JW understanding than Trinitarian dogma?

As it is, you have Trinitarian scholars who generally argue that the Bible at least doesn’t fundamentally contradict Trinitarian dogma. If JWs quote those scholars on particular points where they agree with JWs, you say that’s illegitimate because those scholars don’t agree with JWs overall.

If JWs quote non-Trinitarians to make a point then you say that’s illegitimate because of course non-Trinitarians are going to agree with JWs.

And if JWs quote liberal scholars, who don’t have a faith commitment, you say that’s illegitimate because of course liberal scholars say the Trinity developed after the Bible, that’s because they are non believers.

So ultimately JWs can’t quote anyone, whether they agree with them on a particular point or not, none of it should be considered.

In reality the conclusions of liberal scholars are interesting because they are not committed to a particular theological outcome. When they say that the NT says that Jesus was God’s first creation and a powerful angel that’s because their historical work has led them to that conclusion. Practically every scholar I can think of who has examined the NT without a prior commitment to the Trinity has concluded that the Trinity developed after the NT was written, and that Jesus is distinct and subordinate to God in the NT, because that’s what a plain reading of the texts suggests.