Regarding Acts 12:21-23, the Jewish historian named Josephus gives a considerably different account of what happened than what the book of Acts says. The account by Josephus is quoted at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Agrippa under the heading of "Reign and death". The account by Josephus is far more in harmony with scientific naturalism than the Christian account in Acts. As a result, the account by Josephus is far more believable and worthy of trust by rational minded people who wish to avoid being superstitious.
Disillusioned JW
JoinedPosts by Disillusioned JW
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Vanderhoven7 (on page 15 of this topic thread) you made the following interesting comment. "If the New Testament is not reliable, and the name Jehovah was completely removed from all ancient manuscripts, God did not preserve His word." My conclusion is that the NT and the OT have indeed been revised and that they (even the best critical texts scholars have of them) are not entirely reliable, and thus that God did not preserve the original texts (the original wording) of the Bible as his word. I further conclude that means the God of the Bible does not exist and that he never existed.
Sanchy (on page 16 of this topic thread) you made the following interesting comment. "If as WT suggests, shadow groups have been able to alter Bible manuscripts by, for example, removing God's name from the NT, then what else might have they altered?" I conclude that the Bible has indeed been altered (at least by by making copies which include revised wording of earlier copies), including in specific ways that scholars have not yet discovered. The manuscripts of the NT available to scholars show that over time the NT did undergo many revisions, and furthermore that the Alexandrian text type of the NT is one of the best representatives the wording of the 3rd century CE text of the NT. But most likely even the 3rd century CE text of the NT is significantly revised from the original texts of the books of the NT.Hopefully, to me, the above quoted comments of the two of you indicate that the minds (the figurative eyes) of the two of you are beginning to be opened to the following three truths. The original wording (and hence the original meaning) of much of the Bible was not accurately preserved by God. The Bible is not the word of God. The biblical God does not exist.
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: I my prior post where I said "Yes the Bible teaches against that" I meant to say "Yet the Bible teaches against that".
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Sea Breeze, even if the Bible consistently teaches that humans and Jesus are a Tri-Partite being (including containing a part of God, such as his 'breath" or his 'spirit'), I don't think that makes your case of Jesus being God in the sense you say and for the reasons you in your recent post. For consider this, if hypothetically such is the case then it would also be proper for humans to worship each other as God and to worship themselves as God. Yes the Bible teaches against that.
Paul in at least one letter (Romans 1:22-25) teaches that the created beings (including humans) must not be worshiped. The book of Acts teaches that Herod was killed by an "angel of the Lord" for accepting worship by other humans. Acts 12:22 says the people said Herod had "a god's voice, and not a man's". Verse 23 says Herod was killed "because he did not give the glory to God". If the Bible teaches that Herod really is part God as you say all humans are, then according to your argument it would have been fine for Herod to accept being proclaimed as having a god's voice and for him to accept being worshiped.
Sea Breeze, since you claim that all humans have the spirit of God and and since you claim they are all thus a part of God or are all God, should I worship you and should you worship me? To me, your logic is clearly hugely flawed.
I noticed you used John 8:27 to make the claim that Jesus claimed to be the Father and thus Jehovah, but John 8:27 does not mean that. The statement of "he spoke to them of the Father" refers to what was said in verse 26. There the verse says that Jesus says he was sent by the Father (not that Jesus is the Father), for Jesus says he was sent by by one who is true and that Jesus spoke the very things he heard from that one. Furthermore verse 28 (1984 NWT) says that Jesus said "... I do nothing of my own initiative, but just as the Father taught me I speak these things." The NKJV translation of the verse has the same meaning as that of the 1984 NWT.
Repeatedly in the gospels Jesus is portrayed as carefully avoiding claiming to be God (he never proclaims of himself "I am God"), though he also is said to frequently claim to be God's son, to be from above, to be sent by God, and to be sent from the Father (namely God the Father). Furthermore, there is manuscript evidence that the NT was revised over time to make stronger claims about Jesus being divine. There is good reason to believe that the original copies of the books of the NT were even more clear of showing a distinction of Jesus from Jehovah (such as by using a form of the name YHWH in the texts, and possibly by explicitly including the word "he" after the phrase "I am" in the sayings attributed to Jesus).
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Furthermore, the Christian scribes of the 2nd century CE might have thought it was fine to use the word "Lord" since Jews at the time avoided pronouncing the name "YHWH" (Yahweh), and often substituted the word meaning "my Lord" instead when reading the scriptures out loud where the Divine Name appears in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Regarding the erroneous transliteration of YHWH into Greek as PIPI note the following from https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/4373/ . "When reading scrolls that contained the Paleo-Hebrew script, a Greek reader had little opportunity to blunder, because the script looked like indecipherable scribble; however, when a Greek reader encountered YHVH written in the more modern square script, the chance for error increased substantially. According to Jerome, those who were unfamiliar with Jewish customs tried to pronounce the Hebrew letters as if they were Greek letters. The result was quite a howler: they pronounced YHVH as PIPI![3] "
Correction: The first three sentences of the last paragraph of my prior post should have said the following. "In our time period (1800 to the present year) it is common for authors to revise their books and for publishers to produce those revised editions. It is also common for publishers to revise books after copyrights have expired and after the authors have died. It thus shouldn't be surprising that some early Christians in making copies of the NT made some revisions to the NT, to suit their purposes."
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding the idea that YHWH was present in some copies of the Greek Septuagint (and/or other Greek translations of the Hebrew Scriptures OT) in time of the influential theologian named Origen, the WT correctly said that Origin said he had seen the name in some copies of the Septuagint and the best (most accurate) copies of the Septuagint contained the name. Note that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton confirms this by saying the following.
'Origen (Commentary on Psalms 2.2) said that in the most accurate manuscripts the name was written in an older form of the Hebrew characters, the paleo-Hebrew letters, not the square: "In the more accurate exemplars the (divine) name is written in Hebrew characters; not, however, in the current script, but in the most ancient." While Pietersma interprets this statement as referring to the Septuagint,[79] Wilkinson says one might assume that Origen refers specifically to the version of Aquila of Sinope, which follows the Hebrew text very closely, but he may perhaps refer to Greek versions in general.[94] [95] '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen says Origen of Alexandria was a Christian scholar who lived from c. 185 – c. 253. It also says the following. "... Origen was a subordinationist,[207][206][208][209] meaning he believed that the Father was superior to the Son and the Son was superior to the Holy Spirit .... At one point Origen suggests that the Son was created by the Father .... At the time when Origen was alive, orthodox views on the Trinity had not yet been formulated[216][219] and subordinationism was not yet considered heretical.[216][219] In fact, virtually all orthodox theologians prior to the Arian controversy in the latter half of the fourth century were subordinationists to some extent.[219] ... Origen is often seen as the first major Christian theologian.[221] ... Origen deeply influenced Arius of Alexandria and later followers of Arianism.[234][220][235][236] Although the extent of the relationship between the two is debated,[237] in antiquity, many orthodox Christians believed that Origen was the true and ultimate source of the Arian heresy.[237][238] "
Note that at a time, during the later 2nd century CE to the early (and possibly the mid) 3rd century CE, when some copies of the Greek Septuagint were known to have the Name (YHWH) in Hebrew script, it was not yet considered heretical for a Christian to believe that God the Father was superior to Jesus Christ and that Jesus Christ was created by God the Father. When Origen wrote, perhaps some copies of the NT then in still existence had the name YHWH in it and perhaps Origen knew of such. Also note that Origen's writings influenced Arius and that Arius' writings for a period time influenced a great many Christians to believing in Arianism. The WT, in regards to the idea of whether or not Christ is God (or a god), believes in Arianism. Though Arianism is now often considered a heresy, for period of time it was widely believed in Christianity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism . It says the following.
'Arianism (Koinē Greek: Ἀρειανισμός, Areianismós)[1] is a Christological doctrine first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336),[1][2][3] a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt.[1] Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,[4][a][5][b] who was begotten by God the Father[2] with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten within time by God the Father, therefore Jesus was not co-eternal with God the Father.[2]
Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father.[6] Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him.[3] 'Regarding how widespread that teaching was for a period of time, note that the same article says the following.
" Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family. Two Roman emperors, Constantius II and Valens, became Arians or Semi-Arians, as did prominent Gothic, Vandal, and Lombard warlords both before and after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Such a deep controversy within the early Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.[13] "
In our time period (1800 to the present year) it is common for authors to revised their books and publishers to produce those revised editions. It is also common for publishers to revise books after copyrights have expired and after the authors have died. it thus shouldn't be surprising that some early Christians in many copies of the NT made some revisions to it, to suit their purposes. They might have felt they were justified to use the word Kyrios in place of the the Hebrew characters of "YHWH" to avoid confusion to Greek records and out of reverence they might have been afraid to attempt to transliterate the Hebrew letters of "YHWH" into Greek letters. Furthermore since some erroneous (due to copyist errors) of Greek transliterations of YHWH in the Septuagint into Greek as PIPI (something which does not mean YHWH, but which looks a lot like the Hebrew letters of "YHWH"), they might have decided it was best to translate it as "Lord" instead. There also existed variant transliterations of YHWH into Greek letters and the Christian copyists of the NT might have thus decided to standardize on the word "Lord" to avoid confusion and to provide consistency.
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Regarding calling something a conspiracy theory or saying that shadowy figures did a conspiracy, such shouldn't always be considered derogatory statements or dismissals. That is because we know that some conspiracies did in fact happen. For some examples of such consider the following.
We know from archaeology that the inscriptions of the names of some ancient rulers have been removed from stone inscriptions and that names of other rulers have been inscribed in their place. Similarly, consider what is said in the book called Negating the Image: Case Studies in Iconoclasm . It mentions that inscriptions of the name of queen Maruaten were replaced with the name of her eldest daughter. Consider also what happened to the name of ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten after he died. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten says "Akhenaten's monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from lists of rulers compiled by later pharaohs." https://www.worldhistory.org/Amarna_Period_of_Egypt/ says the following.
'Horemheb razed Akhetaten and dumped the ruins of the monuments and stelae into pits as fill for his own monuments. So thorough was Horemheb's work that Akhenaten was wiped from Egyptian history. His name was never mentioned again in any kind of records, and where his reign needed to be cited, he was referred to only as "the heretic of Akhetaten". ...
Akhenaten's name was lost to history until the 19th century CE when the Rosetta Stone was deciphered by Jean-Francois Champollion in 1824 CE. Excavations in Egypt had unearthed the ruins of Akhenaten's monuments used as fill, and the site of Akhetaten had been mapped and drawn early in the 18th century CE. The discovery of the Amarna Letters, along with these other finds, told the story of the ancient 'heretic king' of Egypt in the modern age where monotheism has become accepted as a natural, and desirable, evolution in religious understanding.'
For another example see https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/hatshepsut_01.shtml . It says the following.
"Soon after her death in 1457 BC, Hatshepsut's monuments were attacked, her statues dragged down and smashed and her image and titles defaced. The female king vanished from Egyptian history. She would remain lost until, almost three thousand years later, modern Egyptologists reconstructed her damaged inscriptions and restored her to her rightful dynastic place."
The USA government also even committed conspiracies. Note that https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192461943?redirectedFrom=fulltext mentions a book published by Oxford Academic which lists "... the revelation of real government conspiracies, notably CIA assassination plots, the Watergate scandal, and the Iran–-Contra affair."
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Correction: The first two sentences of the last paragraph of my prior post should say the following. "Furthermore, Justin Martyr's argument that everyone who has a name received the name from someone older than them is false. Some people change their own name, thus making their current name one which they gave to themselves."
Vanderhoven7, the translators of the NKJV seem to also suspect that the NT originally had the name YHWH in quotes of the OT which had the name. I think partly because in regards to the words "LORD" and "GOD", they say the following in the Preface of the NKJV (at least in an edition which is copyright 1988). "In the present edition the name is so capitalized whenever the covenant name is quoted in the New Testament from a passage in the Old Testament." I also think I read more than a year ago that they said there is evidence that the Name was originally in the NT, but maybe it was some editor of a study edition of the Bible who said that instead.
Also keep in mind that prior to the 1940s no scholar in at least the past 1,000 years knew of any copies of the Septuagint OT which contained the Name, but in the 1940s some copies were found. Thus just because no known extant ancient copies of the NT contain the name, that doesn't prove there never very ancient copies of the NT which contained the Name. It also does NOT mean there never will be found ancient copies of the Greek NT (or Syriac/Aramaic NT) with the Name in them.
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
Thanks slimboyfat for quoting Gaston's words of "G. Howard points out that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters." That is something I did not know. Those words are a figurative "big eye opener" to me. That message is a huge revelation. I knew there were some LXX manuscripts which contained the tetragrammaton, but until now I didn't know that ALL of the LXX manuscripts from the first century CE lacked kyrios as a substitution for the tetragrammaton. WOW!
Vanderhoven7, your references to P47 does not not refute slimboyfat's (and Gaston's) claim since that manuscript (which you say that according to JWfacts "dates prior to 300 A.D.") is dated to very probably AFTER the 2nd century CE (after the year 200 CE) and slimboyfat says the NT was revised in the 2nd century CE (and thus before the year 201 CE). Also since "P66 dates from around 200 A.D." it might also be after (by a few decades) the time period which slimboyfat claims the NT was revised.
Paul's writings are from the mid 1st century CE and slimboyfat revealed that Gaston revealed that George Howard revealed that "that in none of the now considerable LXX texts from the first century is kyrios used for the tetragrammaton, which is written in Hebrew letters." Since Paul quoted from the scriptures in which the tetragrammaton was used in both the Hebrew Scriptures text and from the Greek Septuagint text (the latter being being revealed us as the case, as stated above), isn't that strong evidence that Paul included the tetragrammaton (YHWH) in his original NT letters which contained those quotes? The congregations he wrote to all had a copy of the OT scriptures (whether in Hebrew or in Greek) which included the tetragrammaton in the text! If they had noticed that Paul's letters to them had used the word kyrios in place of the tetragrammaton wouldn't they been alarmed?
Regarding the quote which Vanderhoven7 provided of Justin Martyr (who was a Hellenized Samaritan before becoming a Christian), I get the impression that Justin Martyr was lying in implying that God the Father has no name. Surely he would have seen the name used in the Scriptures if he ever read them in the Hebrew or Samaritan texts, or even in the Greek Septuagint text (since we now know the Greek Septuagint manuscripts contained the name). He lived from AD 100 – c. AD 165, thus he must have have seen the name in the OT scriptures - unless the revision of the Septuagint (to exclude the name) had already taken place in the 2nd century CE before Justin Martyr began reading the scriptures as a Christian and even as a person of the Samaritan religion.
Furthermore, Justin Martyr argument that everyone who has name received the name from someone older than them is false. Some people change their own name, thus making their current name one which gave to themselves. Furthermore, the OT teaches that (or at least makes the implication) that YHWH gave his name "YHWH" to himself.
-
263
What Name Does the New Testament Emphasize - Jehovah or Jesus?
by Vanderhoven7 init 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).
-
-
Disillusioned JW
The idea that "there is no access to the Father without the Son" is a Christian idea not held by Jews who practice Judaism. The Bible book of Psalms contains numerous prayers to YHWH without invoking the name Yeshua. A great many of Jews of deep religious faith pray to God (using the Hebrew word meaning "Lord") and believe as much as devout Christians that God hears their prayers. The model prayer in the gospels of Matthew and Luke instructs the followers on how to pray, yet nowhere does it invoke the name of Jesus or the word Christ (though admittedly in other parts of the gospels Jesus instructs his followers to ask in his name when asking something of the Father).
No better results are obtained when Christians (whether non-JW Christians or Jehovah's Witnesses) pray to God than when people practicing Judaism pray to God, or when Muslims pray to God. The results are same as when atheists contemplate what they want in their lives.
Of course I have high conviction that no prayer reaches God/god (any god) and that there is no holy spirit (or any spirit being), since I'm now an atheistic naturalist.