by slimboyfat 171 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Mathew 28 19. There is your three in a single verse and a pretty important one as well.
He said it this way because of the three items that were placed in the ark of the covenant.
1. The staff of Aaron, 2. The Ten Commandments, 3. The jar of manna.
1. The way. 2. The truth 3.The Life.
The curtain between the holy and the most holy was ripped in two at Jesus' death.
No one comes to the father except through Jesus.
The trinity is the early church fathers trying to reconcile the idea that Jesus is the physical manifestation of god in the Old Testament, the fact Paul is applying the YHWH to christ and Jesus is called god, yet Jesus seems to be in subjection to god. I don’t think there is anything short slighted or sinister about it.
If you believe the bible is total bullshit, that is fine. I don’t can’t stand the selective narcissism of the watchtower . There is literally no idea of the bible narrative.
Earnest is very knowledgable about the transmission of the NT text ....The point I made, and that Earnest agreed with, is that scholars have pointed out that the scribe of the famous Sinaiticus Codex saw fit to change the text in his copy during the crucial period in 4th century when Jesus was being elevated to the Trinity. As Juan Hernández says, the text was apparently viewed as a “problem” in that crucial period.
I taught manuscript transmission along with working as acting as the editor for a religious publication for 2 years. Amount of knowledge on a subject notwithstanding, the point is that those who attempted to make any changes to the text were:
1. Not affecting the foundation of the dogma itself since the dogma was not founded upon the text in question let alone New Testament Canon.
2. Revelation is a late work not known to the early Church and not a logical choice for debate anyway for the Trinity dogma.
3. The Trinity is a Christian "mystery," in other words a revealed truth, based upon the Apostolic Fathers' understanding and experience of Jesus and life in what they called the "Spirit." The dogma would become a formal creed years before a canonical library was created by and for the Church that would even set the Book of Revelation aside in the first place, let alone have some attempt to change its wording because it suddenly had any authoritative status (something it did not have prior to the Trinity dogma being formulated).
You are arguing a dogma not affected by a text that was canonized after the Trinity was invented--a dogma that was not based on the text in question.
It doesn't matter anyway. I keep telling you and others that you are going in circles, but the Watchtower residual in some of us keeps some of us arguing.
This is why I say we should be very angry about what's been done to us. The effects of this cult are not easily wiped away. There is not even a reason to argue here, but the desire to fight, the "us against them" instilled by Watchtower won't let some drop swords and shield.
It doesn't matter. Your argument doesn't matter one bit. It never, ever did. You are motivated not by evidence but but an emotional scar. We all have our own. This might be yours. We all have our own.
"Mathew 28 19. There is your three in a single verse and a pretty important one as well."
Just those three mentioned in one verse is the trinity?
What about the co-equal, co-eternal? You don't get that from that verse.
It says the holy spirit came down as a dove. Jesus was there anointed or baptized with the holy spirit. The first one. That anointed him as king. Holy spirit was the equivalent of oil on Saul and David anointing them as kings. The holy spirit as oil shows that it is not a person or God or co-anything. IT is another example of it being a tool of God.
KaleboutWest (to Simboyfat): It doesn't matter. Your argument doesn't matter one bit. It never, ever did. You are motivated not by evidence but but an emotional scar. We all have our own. This might be yours. We all have our own.
Although true that many of us have 'emotional scars' left behind from Watchtower shoddy practices, it is also true that once out, we dropped a lot of their religious habits and teachings. That said, a common problem I see from ex-JWs is that somehow, at least some, have implied or concluded that any teaching associated with JWs must be simply wrong. I disagree with such assessment. I tend to think that both the WTS and other religious groups are not always wrong or right on everything. We all have limited knowledge, in part because we lack full information in a lot of matters. It is not so simple to declare this group as right in all and the other one as incorrect.
Addressing Slim as having "an emotional scar" and dismissing his views may not be the most prudent course. Slim has been respectful overall in addressing a lot of issues, particularly surrounding the Divine Name and the Trinity. I find that encouraging. On the Trinity, the fact is that there are hundreds of texts pointing to a Supreme Being above all, and just a small number of them that could perhaps be understood in some manner that places Jesus at the level of God. Even Trinitarian scholars have mentioned that the most common scriptures used to defend the Trinity are disputable. Let's not forget that some individuals in this forum forward long posts in defense of the Trinity, almost to the point of treating others not accepting their dogma as idiots. I do appreciate when other posters make me think and help me reconsider past and present views.
KalebOutWest : The verse [Revelation 3:14] has not been altered. We have the original reading.
As the OP is referring to the codex Sinaiticus, it is quite clear the verse has been altered. I show below the Greek and English text of Nestle-Aland 28 and codex Sinaiticus for comparison.
Revelation 3:14
Sinaiticus
και τω αγγελω τηϲ εν λαοδικια εκκληϲιαϲ γραψο ταδε λεγει hο αμη και hο μαρτυϲ hο πιϲτοϲ και hο αληθινοϲ και hη αρχη τηϲ εκκληϲιαϲ του θυ
And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, and the faithful and true witness, and the beginning of the church of God;
NA28
και τω αγγελω τηϲ εν λαοδικεια εκκληϲιαϲ γραψον ταδε λεγει hο αμην hο μαρτυϲ hο πιϲτοϲ και αληθινοϲ hη αρχη τηϲ κτιϲεωϲ του θεου
And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God;
Whether the "original" (by which I presume you mean NA28 or ECM) reading was harmed or not, is not the point. The point is why the copyist of the fourth century manuscript changed the text from "the beginning of the creation by God" to "the beginning of the church of God". This cannot be explained by a slip of the pen or skipping a line whilst copying. It is a deliberate alteration of the text. You can see in the Greek text there is no similarity between κτιϲεωϲ and εκκληϲιαϲ. And the noteworthy thing is that the correctors (of which there were several) failed to correct it for three hundred years, that is until the seventh century.
KalebOutWest : Besides, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text whatsoever. The dogma was set in 325 CE at the Council of Nicea.
Of course, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text as it offers no support for it. On the contrary. But the fact that Arius asserted that the Son was the beginning of all creatures, using the same wording as Revelation 3:14, indicates that he was familiar with the expression.
Revelation was known and used long before the Council of Nicaea. Justin Martyr (c.100-165) shows a clear knowledge of it in his discussion of the ‘Millenium of Peace’ (see his Dialogue with Trypho 81.4). The Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, relating to the persecution of Christians in Gaul about 177, quotes from Revelation 22. Also, parts of it are found in several papyri prior to the fourth century: P. Chester Beatty 3 (P47) originally contained the whole of Revelation and dates to the late 3rd century. P98, containing parts of the first chapter, is dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. The book must obviously have been recognised some time before then to end up in Egypt in the second/third century.
Whether or not it was included in some official canon is irrelevant. Quite clearly the copyist who wrote codex Sinaiticus thought it important enough to include it and considered 3:14 to be influential enough to have to change it.
Wonderment - “…a common problem I see from ex-JWs is that somehow, at least some, have implied or concluded that any teaching associated with JWs must be simply wrong. I disagree with such assessment...”
Me too.
Even a busted clock is right twice a day.
😏
I am Jewish. Jews aren't Christian, and don't believe in Jesus.
I am getting all these odd replies, such as if I am trying to be dismissive or claiming "this group" either wrong or right.
Why are you debating this at all? What is the point? What will it do in the end? Will it change things? Will it stop people from believing in something? Will it prove what you believe today? It doesn't change anything or even prove your points.
Now, as a Jew, it isn't normal to sit there and tell people: "Hey, the Trinity is what the status quo." I grew up in the Watchtower. I wasn't born in. I only stayed for a little under 10 years, thankfully, but I was there long enough enough to know that the Trinity and the claims of a Jew are not expected to click.
I'm not trying to advance my personal views as a Jew here, obviously. If that were the case, I wouldn't care whatsoever. But how much investment do most people have in their own arguments when they write things?
Again, a Watchtower thing: only capable of seeing things from one's own point of view.
WHY IS JESUS CONSIDERED GOD?
While the written Gospel themselves are not the basis of the stories, the memories of the Apostles of what Jesus did of could do something described in a Divine Psalm about God played an important factor. The narrative was later written into the various canonical accounts, more or less as so:
Leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat just as he was. And other boats were with him. A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up. Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. They woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Quiet! Be still!” The wind ceased and there was great calm. Then he asked them, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” They were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?” They came to the other side of the sea, to the territory of the Gerasenes.--Mark 4:36-5:1.
The account, reported in Matthew 8:18, 23-37 and Luke 8:22-25 ending with the "Who is this?" is a reference to the Jewish prayer of Psalm 107:
Some went down to the sea in ships, / to trade on the might waters. / These have seen the deeds of the Lord, / the wonders he does in the deep.
For he spoke and raised up the storm-wind, / tossing high the waves of the sea / that surged to heaven and dropped to the depths. / Their sounds melted away in their distress.
They staggered and reeled like drunkards, / for all their skill was gone. / Then they cried to the Lord in their need, / and he rescued them from their distress.
He stilled the storm to a whisper, / and the waves of the sea were hushed. / They rejoiced because of the calm, / and he led them to the haven they desired.--Psalm 107:23-30.
This was one of the earliest signs of divinity remembered in the Church because of the impression it had directly on the Jewish mind. As Amy-Jill Levine wrote in the Jewish Annotated New Testament in the footnote to the Matthew narrative: "Matthew portrays Jesus, like God, as lord over nature, thus surpassing Jonah." The sign was meant to be two-fold to the Jewish mind: greater and more powerful than the prophet Jonah, who could not overcome the storms he was riding over, and someone far greater.
On Shavuot, what is translated as "Pentecost" in Greek, another sign to the Jews would take place (all this was important because the Church was still a congregation of Jews).
Shavuot was the annual celebration after counting the Omer, fifty days from the day after Passover, where a special offering was brought to the Temple. But it came to mean something more. It developed into the day the Jews celebrated the moment God gave the Law Covenant to Israel on Mt Sinai after the Exodus. The stories of how the nation stood before God's fire and hearing his voice thunder down his commandments was often observed by the reading of the entire Torah on this day, so crowds from everywhere would gather in groups to hear it read from the early morning till evening.
When the Christians gathered and the Holy Spirit poured itself upon them on Shavout, it did so with a loud sound, like a strong wind storm, and the room that the Christians were in saw "tongues as of fire" or in other words another manifestation of God's voice now manifesting itself no longer from the heavens but in each individual Christian who was able to preach to the crowds who came to hear the Torah read (which was done in Hebrew, which most Jews learned regardless of their nationality--which is why such a multilingual group could be gathered together).
Instead of Hebrew, the Christians were able to 'speak in their own tongues about the mighty acts of God.'--Acts 2:1-11.
This event is just one of the many reasons the Church came to view the Holy Spirit as God. At Mt. Sinai, God was the Burning Bush and later Theophany of flame celebrated annually (even today) as Shavuot or Pentecost. So when the Holy Spirit came upon the Church in a similar manner on the same day during the time of the reading of the Torah, this was one of the reasons why the Spirit is considered God.
I can go on and on. But now it is your turn to show why these points are not so. How these points are just mistakes by the Christians from long ago. Trintarians don't care about what you are discussing.
And these two points are just two. This is how Trinitarians come to understand and see the Trinity--not Bible verses per se. They see Jesus match God in experiences. They see the Holy Spirit act like God from the past. I can go on and on and on. I studied this for the past 30 years--and I am Jewish! You should spend time studying everything, not just things to fit your own narrative.
So let's hear it....Come on. I can do this all day. I'm on vacation.
Is it me? Is it the Trinity? Or it a scar? Am I just reducing you or your views? What is it? A Jew doesn't have anything invested in the Trinity. I don't care what you believe. Am I against you? Am I really an enemy? Or am I just an academic writing from an academic point of view? Evil or academic?
The problem is, you care every bit what you are typing about, right? And that comes from the Watchtower. That is the problem. You have yet to let that go.
Am I against you? Am I really an enemy? Or am I just an academic writing from an academic point of view? Evil or academic?
Hi Kaleb. Well, from my perspective as a person of faith....
No you are not an enemy. No one here is. Even the atheist nonbelievers are simply offering their perspective. I do enjoy greatly your academic contributions. It's always great to see the different angles.
The Trinity is a Christian "mystery," in other words a revealed truth, based upon the Apostolic Fathers' understanding and experience of Jesus and life in what they called the "Spirit." The dogma would become a formal creed years before a canonical library was created by and for the Church
This particular point is key to me personally. It's a point I understood some time ago, and it certainly renders the 'debate' rather unnecessary. The acceptance that this concept of the Trinity is a 'mystery' places it in the same group as all other impossible to determine concepts.
One of the things that drove my parents away from the Catholic Church was the common statement that "that is only for God to know". This wasn't sufficient for them. It's ironic that I now agree with that statement. Is God part of a Trinity? Is he not? Does it matter? Does it diminish my faith to not know definitively?
No.
Either way I'm still only human, and God is still a superior spiritual being.
over a thousand years ago some dude broke up the bible into chapter/verse breaks
but if you step back and read the whole passage around rev. 3:14
it's not talking about angels or jesus or god
it's talking about showing love
