How are your wife and daughter reacting (if at all) to your official disassociation from the WT/JW religion?
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
16
Disassociation letter
by joao ini sent my disassociation letter two days ago!
i couldn't stand it anymore!
so many lies, the exploitation of sincere people, the ridiculous amount of rules and all this protection of pedophiles, plus the life of gb as if they were wealthy dictators!
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Update: In my prior post's first paragraph I wished to insert "The New Testament In The Language Of The People" (also known as the Williams New Testament) into the list, but I ran out of time. In that same paragraph where I said "(or an equivalent wording is not used in the ..." I should have said "(or an equivalent wording) is not used in the ...".
Furthermore, I wished to insert the following paragraph in between the second and third paragraphs of my prior post but I ran out of time.
A scholar who is a Jewish Historian of Christian Beginnings, named Hugh J. Schonfield, (who has the conviction that Jesus fulfilled the role of the Messiah [but was only a human, not a divine being, nor someone who had a prehuman existence in heaven], though I am not sure the scholar thinks of himself as a Christian) has a New Testament translation called "The Original new Testament". His translation of the latter part of Acts 11:26 is the following. "It was at Antioch too that the disciples first received the designation of Christani." The footnote for "first received" says 'Or "first gave themselves".' Due to reading that footnote a moment ago I now think that maybe Fenton's translation of "first called themselves ..." might be a legitimate translation.
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
The expression of "by divine providence" is the wording of the WT's NWT. The WT claims that a Greek word in the verse means (or implies) "by divine providence called" instead of simply "called", but to my knowledge "by divine providence" (or an equivalent wording) is not used in any other English Bibles for Acts 11:26. For example "by divine providence" (or an equivalent wording is not used in the NKJV, KJV, NASB, ASV, ARV ("American Revised Version" of 1898), RV ("Revised Version" of 1881-1885, 1895), NRSV, RSV, NIV, TNIV, REB ("Revised English Bible"), "Emphatic Diaglott", NLT ("New Living Translation"), NAB (a Catholic Bible called the "New American Bible"), "The Complete Bible: An American Translation" (commonly called the Goodspeed and Smith Bible), "The Twentieth Century New Testament", "The New Testament in Modern Speech", "Centenary Translation of the New Testament" (also called the Montgomery New Testament), the Moffatt translation of the Bible, and "The Bible in Living English" (also known as the Byington Bible, a Bible which the WT is the copyright owner and the sole publisher).
See also the "Complete Bible In Modern English" by Ferrar Fenton, which in addition to not specifying that God's providence brought about the name, it also totally leaves out the idea that non-Christians first started calling Christ's followers Christians. That is because that Bible says the disciples "at Antioch first called themselves Christians." But I don't think the scripture verse should be worded in such a way which leaves out the possibility that non-Christians were the ones who first started calling Christ's followers Christians.
All of the above mentioned translations of the Bible are ones which I own a copy of and have included in my personal library.
Obviously the translators of most English Bibles don't think that verse warrants using the expression "by divine providence" in the translation of Acts 11:26.
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: Though in my prior post and an earlier one I said Codex Sinaiticus says "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch" I had in mind Chrestians in regards to Codex Sinaiticus (or at least I should have had such in mind). At least I was correct in saying the following. 'https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/christian.html [It says the following. "In all three New Testament passages the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus reads "Chrestian." '
We agree that the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Beza both say "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch". You are correct that I made the mistake of thinking they said Chrestians (even though I correctly wrote Chreistians).
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
I realize that codex Alexandrinus reads Christians instead of Chrestians, which is why I did not claim it reads Chrestians (nor Chreistians). We agree that the Codex Sinaiticus says "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch".
Regarding your other comments in your most recent post in this topic I intend to respond to them later.
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
One of the things which I think is very interesting is that a number of artifacts (ones which don't contain a biblical verse) written in Greek which contain the word Chrestian also contain both the name Jesus and a Greek transliteration of the divine name (as IAO) in a rite/incantation for expelling demons! Sometimes those texts also say "holy spirit". The end of the Mathew 28:19 says to baptize in the name of the father, son, and the holy spirit.
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
http://www.marcionite-scripture.info/marcion.html under the heading of 'THE ORIGIN OF THE WORD "CHRISTIAN" ' makes interesting statements regarding "Chrestus", "Chrestos", and "Chrestianity".
-
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Earnest, http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chrestians%20christians.htm documents the "papyri or manuscripts" which answer your question. The site mentioned above says (and shows) that the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus, and the Codex Beza each say "The disciples were first called Chreistians in Antioch ..."! That site also shows the earliest extant manuscript of the "Annals" by Tacitus in reference to followers of Christ shows evidence of originally saying "Chrestians" before being tampered with to say "Christians" (see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Christians_and_Chrestians ). All later extant copies of the Annals say "Christians".
For further documentation see the following.
https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/christian.html [It says the following. "In all three New Testament passages the uncorrected Codex Sinaiticus reads "Chrestian." We know from many sources that this variant was widely current in the 2nd century. Blass in his edition of Acts not only consistently reads "Chrestian," but conjectures that "Chrestian" is the correct reading in Tacitus (Annals, xv.44), the earliest extra-Biblical testimony to the word.']
http://cista.net/Origins-of-Chrestianity/sites.google.com/site/originsofchristianity/archaeology-of-chrest/from-gnosticism-and-greek-magic-to-the-chrestian-new-testament.html -
16
Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"
by Half banana inin the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!
there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.
its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Earnest, I have read that the earliest copies of the NT say "Chrestian" instead of "Christian".
-
21
Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT
by Wonderment inrobert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.
under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.
in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.
-
-
Disillusioned JW
The translation of the Bible by Ferrar Fenton (called The Complete Bible in Modern English on it front outside cover), in the edition printed in 1928, translates the latter part of Genesis 9:6 as "because I made man under the shadow of God". On the title page it called the following. The Holy Bible In Modern English Containing The Complete Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ...".
Interestingly the Joseph Smith Translation (of the LDS/Mormon church) in its rewrite and expansion of Genesis at Genesis 9:13 it says the following. "For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man." See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/9?lang=eng . That web page also has a link to the traditional wording of Genesis (and I think it is in the KJV translation), for comparison.