by unbaptized 91 Replies latest watchtower bible
Free2 wrote: "If you want to find answers like this, your going to have to remove the JW mind set and the Christian mind set and broaden your search."
Mad writes: I don't have the time to read all these posts, Free2- please reveal the findings of your Broadened Mindset; who have YOU discovered God to be?
Mad,
As to your one factual question, the Greek transliteration Iaô is found in a Qumran ms of the LXX of Leviticus (4QLXXLevb) which is dated to the 1st century BC. It is also found in many magical papyrii.
The rest of your reply attempts to counter facts with apparently sincere "human reasoning" (an intended pleonasm). Facts are stubborn and patient. They can wait for you to get around your preconceptions and prepare to make sense of them. But they won't give in if you don't.
http://www.tetragrammaton.org/harshrealities.htm
If you think of it, the absence of any literal "name" for God in the NT (in spite of many theological reference to "God's name," just as in contemporary Judaism, cf. the Qaddish which parallels the Lord's Prayer) is just one of many differences between the OT and the NT which cannot be understood without a knowledge of the so-called "intertestamental" period. When you turn from Malachi to Matthew in a Protestant Bible you jump into a completely different world with a new set of notions and beliefs which can hardly be found in the OT (demons, exorcisms, Gehenna, etc.). The Gospel Jesus simply shares them with his contemporaries. You could argue that since such things are not taught in the OT he would certainly not have bought into "late Jewish superstition" -- but according to the Gospels he just did.
Btw, I do have The Life of Brian and love it.
"Mad: Good for you! Only an idiot assumes there is NO God."
Oh! What a brilliant retort mad! Do share with us heathens your overwhelming proof for the existence of some fantasy creature in the sky?! We wait anxiously for your profound wisdom!
Or better yet, spare us having to see your repugnant avatar splashed all over these pages containing your polished turds of regurgitated watchtower nonsense.
We've all been around the block here pal, and trolling JW ass-clowns such as yourself are typically chewed up and spit out, in short order. By the way, do your elders know you are
participating in an apostate message board? I'm sure they would be most interested in your defense of such scandalous activity. Please tape-record you judicial meeting for us, it should
make for oscar-worthy dramatics!
Nark wrote: "If you think of it, the absence of any literal "name" for God in the NT (in spite of many theological reference to "God's name," just as in contemporary Judaism, cf. the Qaddish which parallels the Lord's Prayer) is just one of many differences between the OT and the NT which cannot be understood without a knowledge of the so-called "intertestamental" period. When you turn from Malachi to Matthew in a Protestant Bible you jump into a completely different world with a new set of notions and beliefs which can hardly be found in the OT (demons, exorcisms, Gehenna, etc.). The Gospel Jesus simply shares them with his contemporaries. You could argue that since such things are not taught in the OT he would certainly not have bought into "late Jewish superstition" -- but according to the Gospels he just did.
Mad: Very interesting view, Nark- and glad you saw & enjoyed that flick as much as I! Demons & exorcism definitely was something new; my view was that the unusual activity (as Satan with the star led the Astrologers/Magi to Herod) was the all-out effort the Demons were making to foil the Messiah, thru fear & misconception. Do I remember correctly? Wasn't there a reference to a demon-possessed man that kept following aways behind Christ shouting "This is the Son of God!"? Many would have believed such a man- and it's likely other things similar were done. The Occult convinces the masses into believing Satan's first lie- that we would never die. The 'Immortal Soul'.
Gehenna is not confusing at all- until the churches get a hold of it! Since the Jews threw garbage into Gehenna every day, at least THEY knew what Christ meant when he said the day would come when the Wicked would be hirled into it!
Getting back to the Divine Name- YHWH is His Name, no matter WHAT vowels you feel belong! Since Jesus was given all power from, and served God, YHWH was simply not another name for Christ. When Jesus said "Hallowed be thy Name", His name wasn't Hallowed. And Christ WAS NOT TALKING about the titles "God" and "Lord".
Therefore, REGARDLESS of the later translations, Jewish Traditions, Church Dogma, the exact vowels, and Christ's position as the Word of God- representing Him- one with GENUINE faith will "Hallow" / HONOR the name of the ONLY True God.
Can't get any simpler than that, Nark! I suppose you like the dispicable New International Translation. It, as MOST, 'hallow' God's name by completely omitting it....
This icon is with YOU in mind, Kid-a!
Here's a question to inform your questions. If all of the sacred texts of all religions were in some way lost without the means to reproduce them, would any deity be so obviously existent and involved in the affairs of humanity that all thinking, intelligent persons would accept it's/his/her godship without debate? Illustration: If all scientific documentation of the theory of gravity were lost, in short order the theory could be rewritten based on unbiased, universal experience.
Nvr
Mad,
I'm afraid you missed my point. I used "demons," "exorcisms" and "Gehenna" as mere examples of notions/beliefs which seem to pop up from nowhere in the NT to a (especially Protestant) Bible-only reader. Actually they are perfectly at home in 1st-century AD Judaism, as can be seen from the wealth of Jewish literature from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. In these respects the NT is not the least "original". It doesn't create those notions, it simply shares them with contemporary Judaism.
It is sheer anachronism to assume that the religion of Jesus or early Jewish-Christians can be simply inferred from OT religion. Within a few centuries Judaism had changed a lot. The Gospels depict Jesus as a 1st-century Jew (e.g. attending Hanukkah in John 10, reclining instead of standing for the Passover, etc.), not an OT Israelite, and unless they clearly show him at odds with contemporary tradition on a specific issue you have no basis whatsoever to conjecture he was. You do find controversies with "Pharisees/Jews" on the Sabbath and ceremonial cleanness but none on the divine name. This, combined with the stubborn absence of any mention of any form of Yhwh in early NT mss, is devastating to the WT reasoning.
Again, it takes complete ignorance of 1st-century and later Judaism to miscontrue mere mentions of the noun "name" (onoma, shem) as evidence of an actual use of the name "Yhwh". As I said, Hallowed be thy name is found in the Rabbinical Qaddish, and it is clearly compatible with the equally rabbinical prohibition to actually pronounce the name "Yhwh".
If you only tried to learn a little about 1st-century Judaism you would easily see that you are wrong not only on the above but on many other issues on which you take the JW summary of "Bible teaching" for granted (e.g. "astrology," re: the Magi, or the "immortal soul," or the actual meaning of "Gehenna"). The NT would immediately make better sense to you where you have to strive desperately to get around the obvious meaning (e.g. the rich man and Lazarus, what a f*cked-up illustration if the WT has it right!). But that would require researching instead of arguing for a little while.
(To answer your last question, I'm no fan of the NIV, and I do agree that the best translation policy is to use some transliteration of Yhwh where it belongs, i.e., in the OT passages where "Yhwh" actually occurs.)
Nark wrote: "I'm afraid you missed my point. I used "demons," "exorcisms" and "Gehenna" as mere examples of notions/beliefs which seem to pop up from nowhere in the NT to a (especially Protestant) Bible-only reader. Actually they are perfectly at home in 1st-century AD Judaism, as can be seen from the wealth of Jewish literature from the 2nd century BC to the 1st century AD. In these respects the NT is not the least "original". It doesn't create those notions, it simply shares them with contemporary Judaism.
It is sheer anachronism to assume that the religion of Jesus or early Jewish-Christians can be simply inferred from OT religion. Within a few centuries Judaism had changed a lot. The Gospels depict Jesus as a 1st-century Jew (e.g. attending Hanukkah in John 10, reclining instead of standing for the Passover, etc.), not an OT Israelite, and unless they clearly show him at odds with contemporary tradition on a specific issue you have no basis whatsoever to conjecture he was. You do find controversies with "Pharisees/Jews" on the Sabbath and ceremonial cleanness but none on the divine name. This, combined with the stubborn absence of any mention of any form of Yhwh in early NT mss, is devastating to the WT reasoning.
Again, it takes complete ignorance of 1st-century and later Judaism to miscontrue mere mentions of the noun "name" (onoma, shem) as evidence of an actual use of the name "Yhwh". As I said, Hallowed be thy name is found in the Rabbinical Qaddish, and it is clearly compatible with the equally rabbinical prohibition to actually pronounce the name "Yhwh".
If you only tried to learn a little about 1st-century Judaism you would easily see that you are wrong not only on the above but on many other issues on which you take the JW summary of "Bible teaching" for granted (e.g. "astrology," re: the Magi, or the "immortal soul," or the actual meaning of "Gehenna"). The NT would immediately make better sense to you where you have to strive desperately to get around the obvious meaning (e.g. the rich man and Lazarus, what a f*cked-up illustration if the WT has it right!). But that would require researching instead of arguing for a little while."
Mad writes: If YOU want to trust 1st Century Judiasm- (or from any century)- to quote Asto (Jetsons/60s cartoon): Rots of Ruck!
(To answer your last question, I'm no fan of the NIV, and I do agree that the best translation policy is to use some transliteration of Yhwh where it belongs, i.e., in the OT passages where "Yhwh" actually occurs.)
nvr
Here's a question to inform your questions. If all of the sacred texts of all religions were in some way lost without the means to reproduce them, would any deity be so obviously existent and involved in the affairs of humanity that all thinking, intelligent persons would accept it's/his/her godship without debate?
I suspect that shamanism and the perrenial philosophy that auldus huxley talked about would be back in some form. Although, science would still be here, and hard line materialists would suppress those, even as they are today attempting to suppress any thoughts not matter based.
Shamanism is the primordial 'religion' if you wanna call it that. In milleniums past, it sprang up spontaneously within tribes around the globe. It is not contradictory to the socalled perrenial philosophy.
- The physical or phenomenal world is not the only reality; another non-physical reality exists. The material world is the shadow of a higher reality which cannot be grasped by the senses, but the human spirit and intellect bear testimony to it in their essence.
- Humans mirror the nature of this two-sided reality: while the material body is subject to the physical laws of birth and death, the other aspect of human existence is not subject to decay or loss, and is identical to the intellect or spirit, which is the sine qua non of the human soul. In the modern West, this second or other reality has been frequently discounted or ignored.
- All humans possess a capacity, however unused and thus atrophied, for intuitive perceptions of ultimate or absolute truth, and the nature of reality. This perception is the final goal of human beings, and its pursuit and flourishing are the purpose of their existence. The major religions try to (re)establish the link between the human soul and this higher and ultimate reality. This ultimate reality, in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), is called God; God is the Absolute principle from which all existence originated and to which all existence will return. Non-theistic religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism, may characterize the ultimate or absolute somewhat differently than the Abrahamic religions, but the fundamental concept is the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
S
I know Marduke has recently gained momemtum in some polls but I'm sticking with the favorite.
Rub a Dub
