Posts by KalebOutWest

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

And my final word is that none of this has to do with Revelation 3:14 or the significance of the Codex Sinaiticus.

If it did, then one could argue about accepting what else is in the same Codex, such as why don't Christians recognize the Epistle of Barnabas? There is far more of this that that tiny change.

Or better yet, as there are far more witnesses in far more canons all the way up until the canon was closed by the Church, why was the Shepherd of Hermas dismissed? This book repeatedly shows up not merely in canon lists but gets mentioned again and again by the Church Fathers and historians.

It is in this Codex. If were are going to argue on how significant this change must mean to history, why not accept the Shepherd of Hermas? Are you not reading it and living your life by it?

You are not.

Because the point is not this Codex. The point is not this verse.

The point is not that history has accepted the Trinity either.

The point is holding on to the Watchtower's view of the Trinity and trying not to admit that you still agree with the Watchtower.

So people often look for other lines of evidence and try not to say what they are actually saying because they don't like what they are saying.

But in reality there is only one type of Christianity. The issue has always been one thing. If it wasn't for the "Son of God" issue and what it means, Jews would likely have had an easier time with Jesus of Nazareth. Resurrection is not far-fetched. Coming back to finish the job--hey, Bar Kokhba did nothing before he was anointed "nasi" or "prince" (Messiah). It has always been the "I AM always with you, even to the end of the world" thing (see, even a Jew can see the connection in these verses--it's very, very plain).--Matthew 28:20.

So exJWs sometimes look for other ways to hold on to Watchtower views as last resorts. Hey--you don't have to accept Christianity. But you don't have to make up stuff either. You can be a Unitarian. There is a name for it, you know.

But you cannot change history. It happened a certain way. It's even recorded in Jewish history. My people know what the claims of Christianity were as it happened. The Pagans (capital "P" meaning the Romans also knew it meant worshipping Jesus as a deity) without reserve. One little change on one manuscript means nothing.

I know some of you--and it is just a few, very few--have trust issues with Bibles and books from mainstream scholars and religions, but that is where the information is: Oxford and the SBL and Judaism and yes, the Catholic Church. You are not joining these groups by reading and studying their works. These are the top notch scholars. You are losing out by not studying and knowing this stuff.

So I get very frustrated--only because that same very very few CLAIM you know things. And if you CLAIM, you had better walk the talk. Otherwise--like I did with you earlier Slimboyfat--someone else will embarrass you worse than I did.

Now believe whatever you want. I don't give a crap.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

But it has nothing to do with the formation of the Trinity dogma.

Dogmas are negative responses to heresy not positive expressions teaching doctrine. By the time the Church developed the dogma of the Trinity, it was due to a controversy that was threatening a basic belief of Christianity.

Revelation is a book chosen to counter the Marcionist movement. It has nothing to do with the Trinity. Christianity did not grow from a text. It wrote a text. Religion first, controversy (Marcionist canon), then response: the New Testament.

It took some 200 to form the New Testament Canon, during which some of these texts changed. The Trinity was a done deal by the time that change in the Codex in question is being discussed. The Church had no more use for anything in Greek. Latin was the new standard being used for the Lectionary.

The official canon of the New Testament is the Latin text of Jerome of 383 CE. Any Greek changes to any Greek text made no difference to Christians after either the Trinity dogma or the New Testament Canon or Jerome's work.

That is history.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

I don't make any of these things up.

I've taught for years in association with three synagogues and three churches, teaching religious education, history and languages. I am not making any of this up. I got a good education after leaving the Watchtower.

I am not saying this to boast. I have been trying to be helpful. But maybe I am naive.

Maybe you don't really want answers. Maybe you guys just want to debate and feel right?

I give up trying to help.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

It is in my answer and in the general history of the Codex.

I already gave the years, the details of its origins, why it has so many differences, and why they are not considered changes to the Canonical text.

The Codex is from the early 300s but does not match the official Canonical text of the New Testament of the late 300s.

The Trinity is not based upon Biblical texts but arose from a tradition prior to both the Marcionist controversy and the production of the Codex.

The Canonical text of the Church was Latin, not Greek, it formed a Lectionary for public proclamation for Church readings not a book for personal reading (that did not actually occur until the famous barefoot walk of Mary Jones into the 1800s).

Some of you have very strange ideas of the significance of this text. It meant nothing until it's discovery. Like the Masoretic Text of Judaism (which was standardized in Hebrew), Christianity standardized its text in Latin for public reading in the Vulgate. It was that reading not any Greek text that was considered the inspired, canonized and standard reading.

In the end, even if Revelation should be translated differently or even be missing, the Trinity dogma doesn't stand on the basis of Scripture. It stands on the basis of revelation..

This is a Jew speaking too. It doesn't matter what you or I believe or want. That is what Christianity believes. You might believe differently. Well and good. But that is not how it historically happened.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

Slimboyfat:

MARCIONISTS.
Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire.--The Catholic Encyclopedia.

This is what I was talking about.

You all are uneducated.

"Marcionism was a 2nd century phenomenon"--Slimboyfat

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

@ Earnest:

I'm sorry I posted a reply to you.

I forgot to use crayon and lots of pictures of people kissing your butt.

But even if I did that, knowing a POMI like you, you would have found a reason to argue back claiming how I was wrong and didn't answer right:

"Use more brown crayon on the nose. I like more brown on the nose," is what I was expecting...

Balaam's ass was smarter.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

Earnest:

So the central question which no-one seems to want to answer is, if scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) did not understand Revelation 3:14 meant Jesus was God's first creation, why did he alter it?

If you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus, this is an answer. The Codex Sinaiticus, and the book of Revelation found therein, is not the same text as what came to be accepted by Christianity and the Church almost a generation later.

The entire Codex not only contains a different reading at Revelation 3:14 but in many other areas throughout, not only Revelation but in every one of its books.

Not only that, it has other books in its collection not found in the New Testament canon--because there was no official canon yet. When the Codex was assembled, the Marcionist threat was a problem for Christianity (the teaching of salvation limited to the means by learning from a canon assembled by Marcion of Sinope, a heretical bishop that claimed he was "a follower of Paul," the apostle).

The Codex contains in its canon not merely variations, but two of the most popular books of Christianity: The Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas.

This Codex was created before the canonization of the New Testament. It is generally understood to be from the family of works commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity in 312 CE.

The New Testament canon's list of 27 books was finalized in 367 CE by Eusebius and given the stamp of approval by the Easter letter of Bishop Athansius of that same year. It was affirmed as "canon" in the year 382, making it the "New Testament" at the Canon of Trent at affirmed in the Syndod of Hippo. This codex, however, predates the Eusebius canon by 45 to 50 years if not more.

It is also not the standard reading that was being circulated at that time, nor was Revelation a popular book. By the time the Codex found its way to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, because of the fact that the readings were considered non-canonical and the fact that the collection contained non-canonical books not accepted by Christianity, someone that did not realize what the collection could mean to history tossed it aside to be burned with the rubbish.

Early writings do not mean "canonical," at least in Christianity. It might confuse some, and they do offer considerable insight, don't give me wrong. But to a Christian world where religious teaching did not stem from religious texts, and since at the time the Marcionist threat was all about "basing doctrine on Scripture," one has to develop a completely different viewpoint here.

The Codex Sinaiticus is different everywhere, not just in one spot. If a difference is what you are going to call out Christianity on the simple basis of one reading from this Codex, then it all falls because Christianity existed before this Codex.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

Oh, for crying out loud! You are all a bunch of spoiled brats who want to promote your own ideas. You can't think outside your self-serving bubbles if you tried!

If you are a mainstream or a mainline Christian, you understand the story to be an allegorical one, with the snake being identified with Satan but as the Church Fathers and modern theologians state only by illustration. Since Genesis was not written with Revelation in mind or with Christianity in mind, one cannot possibly claim that "the Bible was written to claim" that the snake was Satan--or that Jesus would later call him as the "Father of the lie" but at the same time not state that he was linking this to the Genesis account (which at John 8:44 there is no mention whatsoever).

If you are a Fundamentalist Christian, you might claim that the statement in John 8:44 was somehow discussing Satan in Genesis chapter 3 and "the dragon, the age-old serpent" as mention in Revelation 12:9, but you have a hard time explaining how Genesis was purposefully written with either of the other two texts in mind in light of the official canonization process. The canon of the Bible was created in response to the heresy of Macion of Sinope and not due to the popular readings of the Christian community. If the popular books of the Christian community were chosen, the Apocalypse of Peter would have been chosen instead of the Revelation to John, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Wisdom of Solomon would have been included, more Epistles of Peter would have been included (except for 2 Peter) and less of the Pauline library (if any). The gospel of Luke appears in the New Testament because it was the counterfeit gospel that Marcion claimed to have written (and he removed the first two chapters). Paul's letters appear in the canon because Marcion edited all evidence of Paul's pro-Jewish comments, claiming Paul did not believe in the God of the Jews. Luke's work of Acts is included (Luke, by the way is neither an Apostle nor a Jew, yet his work is elevated to Apostolic witness in the canon by the Church Fathers to counter Marcion).

If you are Jewish, the snake is the same character as the donkey in Numbers chapter 22. It is a Hebrew trope that represents a "crisis of conscience" in the Torah (remember that Genesis chapter 3 is the same book as Numbers 22 in Hebrew in Judaism, known as "the Torah"). In Genesis the "snake" is the "crisis" of Eve, whether or not she should break the Ten Commandment against "stealing" and partaking of the forbidden fruit. In Numbers, the "donkey" is the "crisis" of Balaam to "use the Name of the Lord in vain" and "bear false witness" by giving a false oracle in the Name of the Lord and cursing Israel. When Eve listens to the "snake" or her "conscience," both are punished. When Balaam listens to his "conscience," both are allowed to live. If you notice, in both narratives, another trope is used, an angel with a sword that represents "death" as divine judgment. (And notice how both Eve and Balaam speak to "their animal" as if animals can always speak, as if nothing is out of place--this is because it is merely a narrative device.)

If you are angry at God, you are just looking for any reason to blame God. You don't really care.

You aren't reading through anything. You aren't looking up information that is outside of your bubble of interest. You are just angry. And you claim God doesn't exist. But you can't be angry at something that isn't real. You should be angry at the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

You can't be angry at a myth or a book or religions that you are not and have never been a part of. It is illogical.

And if you really wanted to know the answer, you would stop arguing and go and get a degree in theology.

But you don't really want an answer.

You are just angry.

Angry people don't want answers.

It's okay to be angry and not want answers, however. But it isn't the fault of any story or the characters within it, no matter how mythical or false. You anger is real. Myths and allegories are not. You cannot heal your feelings and viewpoints and opinions by arguing over allegories and religions that you will not get formal education on (or feel you do not need or require). You are real. Your opinions are real. Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the folklore and myths and legends of my people the Jews, and not.

You are being very unhealthy in dealing with your realities.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

I was on my way out (and it's my last day of vacation, so I may not be around for quite some time if at all--I believe have a different road ahead that will take me different places).

However, being a Hebrew speaker, the King James Bible has influenced most English Bible to read: "In the day you eat of it you will surely die..." as if the Hebrew word in this instance is simply YOM.

Is is not YOM as in Genesis 1:5. The word here is BEYOM, and (as a rabbi had it drilled into me--in a very, very, very boring way I might add), though they are related and sound the same because of the root, they do not mean the same thing.

One, YOM, means a literal day, such as when the sun goes up and then the sun sets. But BEYOM refers to a period of the time, such as the expression, "in the day of Moses, such and such happened..."

For instance, notice Leviticus 14:57:

to determine when it is unclean and when it is clean. This is the rule for defiling diseases

Notice the first highlighted use of the word "when." That word in the Hebrew is BEYOM.

And here it is the very first time is appears in the Bible, Genesis 2:4:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

The KJV, the NAB, and the NIV renders this verse as "in the day they were created" instead of using "when" as the NRSV and RSV above.

Note Genesis 30:33:

So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you.

Here, in the above verse, BEYOM is rendered as "in time to come" in the KJV.

It is this Hebrew word, BEYOM, not YOM that is used at Genesis 2:17 and 3:5:

"BEYOM you eat of it, you will die."

In Hebrew, when you are called to the bimah to read this section from the Torah, what does a B'Mitzvah or a nominal Jew understand this portion of the text to mean?

It means something like:

"When you eat of it" or "As soon you bite into it" and not the very 24-hour period or YOM. In other words, death begins with that first bite or "you seal your death with your taking of it," like that.

English is what you call "epigrammatic," meaning very exact in what it says. That is why we are having arguments today about "inclusive language." Should we use the word "maneater" anymore? Is that word, therefore "sexist," implying that such an animal does not eat women too? (Weird, I know.)

Hebrew is the opposite. It's words are layered with meaning. And you cannot match a Hebrew word or phrase between these two languages (English and Hebrew) very easily because of this fact. YOM and BEYOM are very good examples. To the English mind and ear a "day" is just a "day" is just a "day." But this is not the same in Hebrew (this also creates problem with the so-called Jesus rising on the "third day," which I will not go into here, but there you go).

To begin with, this is just an allegory or myth, at least to the Jews. It did not happen. (Sorry JWs and Fundie Christians.) It's a story about God owning a garden in the style of a Babylonian hanging garden of his own and hiring the forebearers of Abraham to work as caretakers. When they steal from God, God banishes them to live outside, "east of Eden." In the eyes of the Jews it is a foreshadowing of the last book of the Torah where Moses, being on the "east of the Jordan," outside of the Promised Land, accepts his fate. Adam and Eve are the same "character" as Moses: all three represent the exiled people of God living "east" of their Promised Land due to breaking the Law as all three characters did (Moses pissed off God too, remember?), thus getting cast out for "breaking the Law" or the Torah. It's an allegory.

God did not "lie" as God probably never told anyone not to steal from him as God never had this conversation or a garden in the first place, etc.

And the word BEYOM, while you can translate as "day" if you want to translate word-for-word, actually means "when" in this case. Translating "word-for-word" doesn't work. It get's you in trouble (try doing that next time you're in Mexico and ordering food or getting directions in Spanish and see what happens)

This story is just a religious lesson to the Jews on not to break the Law Covenant again or they will end up being exiled once more as the Torah was compiled after the Exile to Babylon. God is no less a character than Adam and Eve, the snake, and the talking donkey that later shows up in Numbers chapter 22 of the same book (its all Torah people...just one long book of Law, not history, Law.)

Oy vey. Good night. Live long and prosper. All hail the Rebel Alliance. Snoopy rules!

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

Thank you, Vandehoven and aqwsed.

I knew the answers to the questions I was posting. They are actually asked by scholars and academics when we give tests on this verse.

They also are listed like this (almost) in some Bibles, such as The Ignatius Study Bible New Testament (and its upcoming full Bible release which will be out in November, later this year).

The idea was to show that the two people I was talking to--especially FA--had made mental spaghetti of their own arguments and had not even opened a simple mainstream study Bible where these questions (and the answers) appear. (There are actually far more condensed that what you provided aqwsed, but well done. Vanderhoven, you gave what is called the "Hillel" answer: "What can be said while standing on one foot.")

Peacefulpete knows his stuff. I don't understand what happens during a discussion sometimes, but I think my time here is mostly wasted. I've said that before, but I think I truly mean it now.

I understand the meaning of POMI in some people, being out of the Watchtower but never being able to escape it for one reason or another. And I am truly sorry. It's not my job, I know, to help rescue anyone, either inside or out, neither do I feel that. (People will be insulted thinking I am talking about anyone in particular, I am sure.)

The teacher in me is very exact and demanding. But he comes out when others tend to challenge and demand, claiming they "know" and "understand" and I do not. I have learned to just try and let them. They will have to stay in this state.

Most of you here do understand the difference. You don't have to know a lot. You don't have to have a degree. You don't have to be an academic or a teacher or a Jew or religious or anything like that.

You merely have to avoid claiming you know something that you don't--while avoiding getting in the face of someone who does and may be just trying to help.

There are a lot of helpers here. And there are a few people with big sticks running around clobbering them on the heads when they try and help.

It's a shame.

Over and out--Kaleb.