Is Rev 5:11-14 Worship or Obeisance?

by JCISGOD98 117 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  godrulz

  Grammatical gender is applied to personal and impersonal objects and is not related to sexual gender. The only reason you say He is an it is because of preconceived bias. He is described as having will, intellect, emotions. This merits personal pronouns. As pointed out in my link, a male child can be neuter or feminine grammatically despite not being so genetically. You are still playing WT games by quoting obscure, questionable scholars or misquoting them. Harvard is a liberal school, not a conservative Christian one. Hundreds of translators and expert Gk. grammarians would take exception to his views. WT has quoted master Greek scholar A.T. Robertson (and misquoted him). If you would check out his thoughts, you would find full defense for Jn. 1:1 God vs a god; personal pronouns and the Spirit, etc. I will take credible, conservative, biblical scholarship over someone who does not claim to be a theologian and whose grammatical points can be refuted (Koine Greek/biblical theology is different than a guy who has some knowledge of Greek). If a liberal pseudo-scholar denies the virgin conception of Christ and His resurrection, I will start looking for the flaws in his argumentation because he is teaching contrary to Scripture. For every WT article claiming support for their cultic views, we can show how they have found obscure, non-Christian sources, misquoted credible Christian sources, misunderstood the scholarship by quoting out of context, etc. I am glad you are trying to research on your own, but you seem to lack the ability to discern evidence based stuff from questionable stuff. The fact you think neuter gender is tied is with personality or genitals proves to me that you don't understand the issues and are hoping to gain credibility by quoting an obscure source that disagrees with far more credible sources in quality and quantity. The NWT is a poor, sectarian version. You will not find support for it from translators. Franz was simply not qualified to do a Bible translation nor were the other guys who are afraid to give their names (we know them) because of there lack of expertise and credentials to make a translation. There is a reason that Bibles with hundreds of scholars working on a translation (from all denominational backgrounds) would not come up with WT theology or NWT (the Hebrew/Greek simply does not support WT).

  DeBuhn's lack of credibility
• 

  Wonderment

  godrulz:

  That site you cited for BeDuhn's lack of credibility is based on bias: their intent is to debase anyone who says just one favorable comment of the NWT. That is not a good source. BeDuhn has the credentials. It is sad that some go so low to smear his reputation, just to show the "incompetence" of the NWT. It goes like this: If any scholar says anything positive about the NWT, a host of emotionally charged individuals will jump on their case, and try to prove them wrong by claiming that "the majority of scholars" condemn the NWT, and so on. The assumption is that the majority is on the side of mainstream religion, so it must be truth, and anyone reading the NWT must be on the wrong side.

  Yet, the Bible says that "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one." (1 Jn 5:19) And that Satan is "the ruler of this world." (Jn 12:31) Satan is the "god of this world." (2 Cor 4:4)

  Now, can anyone here be so certain that Satan has no control over mainstream religion? Thus, caution is advised.

  I analyze both camps, and I find truth and falsehood on both camps. Thus, everything has to be compared with Scripture, and not with what the majority claim. The religious majority in Jesus' day were off the mark. Could the same thing be happening here? Be careful.

  Don't put all your eggs in one basket. We can learn from anyone representing different views. We got to take it case by case, placing greater emphasis on simple bible statements, not human philosophy. Don't sweat the details, because we all lack complete knowledge. There is not one single source of truth, other than God and Christ. Can we live by that?
• 

  Wonderment

  godrulz: "WT has quoted master Greek scholar A.T. Robertson (and misquoted him). If you would check out his thoughts, you would find full defense for Jn. 1:1 God vs a god; personal pronouns and the Spirit, etc"

  A.T. Robertson was a brilliant scholar, but a Baptist. Greek grammar alone cannot be used to to show the correctness of the traditional rendering of John 1:1. Other scholars disagree with him on a good number of issues, both grammatical and doctrinal-wise.

  Whether we were JWs or Baptists, we are all influenced by what others say. Again, caution is advised. Robertson is not a god. He was a human with all the limitations of humankind. I think it is far more important that a more knowledgeable person than he, Jesus Christ, wanted us to know that ‘the Father was greater than he was.’ And after resurrection, he still went around talking about his Father being ‘his God,’ and ‘the God of everyone else.’ (Jn 20:17) When he went to heaven, he felt no disconfort whatsoever telling the world about ‘his God.’ (Rev. 3:12) Why should we? For some reason, he did not say the same thing about the holy spirit.

  I think Jesus has far greater credentials than the late A.T. Robertson. I love the simple statements of truth of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the one I look up to.
• 

  still thinking

  Wonderment I have missed your reasoning...so glad to see you back...(by the way, did you ever get my email?)
• 

  Sulla

  Couple quick notes, if I may.

  BeDuhn is mostly famous for his enthusiastic defense of the NWT, claiming it is the least biased translation available. Such a viewpoint doesn't make him wrong when he makes statements about Greek grammar, but, well, it make me question his sense. The number of scholars who have the slightest respect for the JW's NWT, counting BeDuhn, makes one. The number of scholars of biblical languages who have the slightest respect for the NWT, counting BeDuhn, makes zero.

  J.D.G. Dunn is a really good scholar who says that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus -- by early, he refers to the period of Paul, within a couple decades of Jesus' death. Dunn sees the development of real worship of Jesus as a later development -- by later, he means around the time of the gospel of John and Revelation, near the end of the first century. Dunn holds Revelation to be quite obviously a book that places Jesus as one who is worshiped the same way God is; he holds this viewpoint regarding books like John, as well.

  I don't think it is fair to suggest, as someone here did, that Hurtado is something like a "last hurrah" for the idea that high Christology is a late development. I think the opposite is more accurate; scholarship seems to be moving away from the idea that it was a late development (post-first century). Indeed, even guys like Dunn place the development well within the NT period.

  Please don't get me started on McGrath. Let me just offer the suggestion that his reading of Revelation is pretty exotic. Part of his argument is that the early Christians did not worship Jesus because worship, in the context of the time, required sacrifice and Christians never sacrificed to Jesus. Thus, according to him, these scenes in Revelation where the entire universe falls to "worship" God and the Lamb can't be seen as worship, really. Of course, Christians didn't actually have cultic sacrifices at all, suggesting that McGrath's reasoning might prove that they didn't worship anybody, God included. Perhaps we could agree that is a bridge too far.

  Interesting discussion. I think the correct answer is that at least Dunn is correct: by the time of Revelation, the intent of the author was to convey real worship of Jesus.

  S.

  (p.s.: Hi, Ann)
• 

  AnnOMaly

  SULLA!!!!!

  

  Good to see you!
• 

  slimboyfat

  J.D.G. Dunn is a really good scholar who says that the earliest Christians did not worship Jesus -- by early, he refers to the period of Paul, within a couple decades of Jesus' death. Dunn sees the development of real worship of Jesus as a later development -- by later, he means around the time of the gospel of John and Revelation, near the end of the first century. Dunn holds Revelation to be quite obviously a book that places Jesus as one who is worshiped the same way God is; he holds this viewpoint regarding books like John, as well.

  My reading of Dunn's book does not bear this out. Dunn does argue that the Christology of Revelation stands apart (which he attributes to its being a visionary book rather than its lateness) but he does not argue for the worship of Jesus in the gospel of John. Can you cite which part of Dunn's books leads you to that conclusion? On the contrary Dunn argues that the divine status of Jesus is very much qualified in the gospel of John, making arguments which are strikingly similar to the arguments JWs have traditionally made:

  The fact that even when describing the Logos as God/god (1.1), John may distinguish two uses of the title from each other is often noted but too little appreciated. The distinction is possibly made by the use of the definite article with theos and the absence of the definite article in the same sentence: 'In the beginning was the logos and the logos was with God (literally, the God, ton theon), and the logos was god/God (theos, without the definite article).' Such a distinction may have been intended, since the absence or presence of the article with theos was a matter of some sensitivity. As we see in Philo... in possibly making (or allowing to be read) a distinction between God (ho theos) and the Logos (theos) the Evangelist may have had in mind a similar qualification in the divine status to be recognised for Christ. Jesus was God, in that he made God known, in that God made himself known in and through him, in that he was God's effective outreach to his creation and to his people. But he was not God himself. There was more to God than God had manifested in and though his incarnate Word. James Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? pages 134 and 135.

  I don't think it is fair to suggest, as someone here did, that Hurtado is something like a "last hurrah" for the idea that high Christology is a late development. I think the opposite is more accurate; scholarship seems to be moving away from the idea that it was a late development (post-first century). Indeed, even guys like Dunn place the development well within the NT period.

  Well time will tell. Evangelical scholars who have promoted a very high Christology early in the NT, with Hurtado at the forefront, have enjoyed the ascendancy in recent decades, without always necessarily making explicit the very conservative assumptions that lay behind their readings. In particular Hurtado has suggested that the reality of the resurrection event itself, for the early Christian community, is what prompted what he describes as the mutation in monotheism within the early chuch to include worship of Jesus alongside God. With scholars such as Dunn and McGrath injecting a bit of realism in the discussion of the early Christian view of Jesus, Hurtado's binitarian/"Jesus devotion" paradigm may yet prove to be the last hurrah for Evangelical scholarship on this matter.

  Please don't get me started on McGrath. Let me just offer the suggestion that his reading of Revelation is pretty exotic. Part of his argument is that the early Christians did not worship Jesus because worship, in the context of the time, required sacrifice and Christians never sacrificed to Jesus. Thus, according to him, these scenes in Revelation where the entire universe falls to "worship" God and the Lamb can't be seen as worship, really. Of course, Christians didn't actually have cultic sacrifices at all, suggesting that McGrath's reasoning might prove that they didn't worship anybody, God included. Perhaps we could agree that is a bridge too far.

  Do I gather from this line of argument that you follow Hurtado's blog too? Because that is essentially the line of attack Hurtado pursued regarding McGrath's book. It's worth noting that Dunn does not seem to share your scathing assessment of McGrath because he cites him extensively and with apparent approval. There is also a great deal more to McGrath's discussion of the Revelation than simply the point about the language of sacrificial cultic worship. But on that point McGrath and Dunn actually make the same obsevation with regard to latreia and latreuein: that it is only used of worship of God and never of Christ. A point which Hurtado still fails to address.
• 

  Wonderment

  still thinking: No, I have not seen any e-mail from you.

  I want to add that by quoting a source about the masculine, neuter gender issue, I am not implying that God and Jesus are like MEN where male sex organs are present. That would be absurd.

  However, the Bible was written by humans, though inspired by God, in a way we could understand things. The Bible itself shows a masculine-centered tendency. Thus, it is not unusual to depict God and Jesus as if they were masculine. But we all know they are spirits, not likely to be carrying around male genitals. What I find odd, is that while the NT speaks of God and Jesus in masculine terms, popular bible versions often change the neuter gender references of the spirit for masculine ones. The NWT generally reflects the Greek better in this matter. Why is that?
• 

  PSacramento

  Slim, I am curious as to how McGrath deals with Thomas's obivous worship and Christological statement of " The God of Me and the Lord of Me" ?
• 

  slimboyfat

  He discusses John 20:28 on pages 67 and 68, but I am all quoted out at the moment. Mabe later. You should get the book, it's pretty good.