Posts by AhHah

33

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus in

i have been curious why the jw's and other cults claim that the bible does not support the notion of the christ as divine (god).

can anyone offer an explanation?

my reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion.

AhHah

Frenchy,

Allow me to refresh your memory on my original post:

The NW translators' insistence on translating the Greek word "kyrios" 227 times and "theos" 10 times as "Jehovah" is based on a presumption that the original New Testament writings must have used the Hebrew tetragrammaton ('YHWH' or 'JHVH') instead of "kyrios" or "theos". This cannot be proven, of course. Because some early fragments of Greek Septuagint manuscripts of Hebrew (Old Testament) scripture preserved the tetragrammaton in a few places where it is found in the Old Testament, their presumption is that the original Greek scriptures must have been written using the Hebrew name for God, instead of Lord or God. Yet, none of the earliest copies of the apostolic writings in existence (such as the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 - containing fragments of nine of the apostle Paul's letters) contain even one use of the Hebrew tetragrammaton, even when quoting Hebrew scriptures where the tetragrammaton was used.

You responded in agreement:

Let us first understand that there exists today none of the original manuscripts. All we have are copies of copies of copies, etc.

Translations are based upon the copies, since the originals do not exist, as you agreed. To conjecture as you have, and as the NW translators have that the tetragrammaton MAY have been used in the original scrolls is just that - conjecture. If conjecture is a valid basis for translation, then where should the conjecture end?

In my opinion, (based upon my research) the lack of any copy of the Greek scriptures with any inclusion of the tetragrammaton obligates the translator to use what is available -- in this case "kyrios" and "theos", which are properly translated "Lord" and "God". If you are aware of any recent discoveries of ancient Greek copies of New Testament writings which contain the tetragrammaton then I would be very interested to hear about it, as would the entire theological community. Until then, the burden of proof is upon the NW translators to justify their position.

As you can see, and as your post confirms, I have not misrepresented any facts. For you to say that I have is irresponsible and I do not appreciate it at all.

Apparently, this is a personal issue with you. For what it is worth, I would not be surprised if the original scrolls actually did include the tetragrammaton. But until a copy surfaces to prove that, I believe that translators should translate with what they have, and not based upon conjecture.

Apparently you disagree. That is your priviledge. But, I do not appreciate your attacks and your accusations.

I have been forthright and have not misrepresented any facts. I wonder why you have a need to claim that I have?

-

Frenchy, at one time, I respected the way that you expressed yourself on this forum, even when I did not agree with you. However, with this and other recent posts, where you have attacked my posts with unfair and baseless criticism, I have lost that respect for you. You have turned this thread into a personal attack instead of sharing information in good will, as spiritual brothers. You have never backed up any of your accusations with any actual evidence, in spite of your bravado.

What is most disturbing, however, is that you seem to have actually enjoyed this attack, as though it were some kind of game to you -- you said at the end of your post, "I am smiling again". What does that say about you as person? What does that say about your heart and your reasons for posting on this forum? I assure you that these last few posts have not been pleasant for me, and I do not consider the discussion of serious subjects like this one, with all of their potential to affect readers, to be a game. These are matters that I have thoroughly researched and which I take very seriously. I do not expect anyone to agree with me, but I do expect that when they post rebuttals that they will not unfairly try to misrepresent what I have said and will not make baseless accusations. If I were looking for that, I would not be posting on this forum.

I always welcome a valid discussion based on the sharing of facts or even respectfully offered opinions. That often results in a productive educational process for all involved, since none of us can be completely informed on every subject that comes up. Your recent posts were intended to discredit my statements by way of the old WT tricks, so as to avoid having to argue based on facts. I am beginning to understand your continued attraction to the JW religion. I am very disappointed and very offended by your posts and by your attitude.

Edited by - AhHah on 23 November 2000 1:13:4

Edited by - AhHah on 23 November 2000 1:27:40

33

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus in

i have been curious why the jw's and other cults claim that the bible does not support the notion of the christ as divine (god).

can anyone offer an explanation?

my reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion.

AhHah

Frenchy,

Now you have lowered the level of this discussion even more by questioning whether my posts are motivated by hate. I think that you and everyone else knows better than that. (Why then did you say it? Are you just upset?)

However, I am definitely irritated by your use of mis-direction in your attempt to discredit my posts and very disappointed by the quality of your posts and by your accusations. Your posts were rebuttals to posts that I made. I would hope that when you choose to post a rebuttal that you would do so fairly and intelligently so as to maintain the quality of the forum. Of course, you are not under an obligation to do so.

Obviously, you believe that purposely mis-translating the Bible is not wrong. In fact you approve of it, when it suits your belief: ----- I believe that I am articulate enough to state what it is that I believe myself. May I point out also that what is obvious to you might not be so obvious to others? I’m smiling at the word “mis-translating”. I am wondering (not stating in the manner in which you do) whether or not you understand the process involved in translating. Can you, for instance, translate from one language to another? Anyway, I don’t see any ‘callousness’ in inserting God’ name in the NT. Who is there that can say for a certainty that the original writings did not indeed contain the tetragrammaton? The writers were all Jewish, all very well acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures from which they quoted profusely and which did indeed contain the tetragrammaton thousands of times. Jesus would have had no hesitation in using his father’s name, why should his followers do, especially those who chronicled his life? It is a point for discussion not an act for accusation of callousness.

Your post above seems to indicate a lack of understanding for what you are discussing or a very liberal view of Bible translation. Either way, I couldn't disagree with you more. My posts are biased, but they are also informed. If you accuse other translators for erring by not translating the tetragrammaton as "Jehovah", how can you excuse translating that name when it is not there? There is no confusion about how to translate the Greek words for "Lord" and "God". To do otherwise is not only biased, it is presumptuous and callous. Translating the Bible is probably one of the most responsible and serious undertakings a human could aspire to. To do so in a careless manner to suit one's own bias is inexcusable. I am well aware that it is very common. That does not excuse it. I am shocked by your attitude on this serious matter.

Since this forum righly focuses on the JW org, and may include exposing them for their deceit and lies to their members, my post was not out of line by exposing their errors in translating the Bible. This is important information that all JWs deserve to be aware of, especially in view of the JW claims to be the only true religion.

Your exceptions to my posts are duly noted and everyone here now has opportunity to read your dissenting opinions and decide for themselves. Again, I believe that the posts speak for themselves as to their basis and value.

I sincerely regret the direction that this post has taken. However, please be aware that I will never refrain from calling things just the way I see them. I have had enough of lies and deceit and half-truths. When you post a rebuttal to one of my posts and use mis-direction and "straw man" tactics instead of genuine and fair arguments to discredit them, then be prepared for my rebuttal to expose them.

When I post on a serious matter, such as this one, I have first done the research to support my arguments. I have no desire and no need to misrepresent any facts. When I state opinions or make judgements on the subject, they should be understood to be just that, nothing more.

Now, let's please raise the standard of this thread back to the level of dignity that all who post here deserve.

Edited by - AhHah on 22 November 2000 17:4:8

33

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus in

i have been curious why the jw's and other cults claim that the bible does not support the notion of the christ as divine (god).

can anyone offer an explanation?

my reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion.

AhHah

I never said that other translators do not do it, did I? Why do you insist on defending them by saying "Yeah, but THEY did it too!". That doesn't seem to me a very intelligent or valid way to discuss matters of such importance. AhHAH

No, you never said they didn’t do it but you never admitted that they did either, did you? Your argument conveniently left out that important piece of information. YOU singled out the NWT for criticism and accused it of doing something that other translations do also. Where is the fairness and the ‘intelligence’ of that? Why use the argument at all if you are willing to admit that the others do it as well. It’s like cheating on a test and then accusing your fellow students of doing so too. What’s the point?

Do I really need to answer that quesion again? Must every post I make have a disclaimer of every possible org that may be guilty of the same to be worthy of posting? Does that omission invalidate the point of the post itself?

I am not attacking the JWs or the NW translators for being any less reprehensible than any others may be. Copying the sins of others should not be an excuse for those who claim to be God's only true organization, should it?

So, in your mind, if everyone does something wrong then no one should even bring it up as being wrong?

Obviously, you believe that purposely mis-translating the Bible is not wrong. In fact you approve of it, when it suits your belief:

Their insistence on inserting God's name in the NT is just one more way that they betray their callousness about how they go about creating their religious deception. ------ I don’t agree with that either. Giving prominence to God’s name does not constitute deception.

I’m responding to your post although it was addressed to Theo and Sandgroper . If you prefer that I don’t respond to comments which are directed to someone specifically then I will honor that in the future as I have no wish to cause any disturbance.

My questions about your continued association with your local congregation of JWs and how you feel about it is my attempt to understand why you often attempt to discredit my criticisms of the JWs and in this case the translators of the NW Bible. You once told me to open my mind to the possibilities that the JWs are God's organization, for purposes of argument and possible enlightenment. In a similar vein, perhaps you should consider setting aside your emotional attachment to that religion and allowing yourself to recognize the failings of that organization for what they are before responding to posts that criticize them. Your objection to reading my criticism of their Bible because I did not criticize every one else's Bible in the same post speaks for itself.

46

Jehovah We'll Believe When We See Signs & M...

by MDS in

truly i say, no sign will be given to this generation.".

" -- 1 cor.

-- see 1 cor.

AhHah

Frenchy,

“Of course, a religious person's response is that one must have faith (but only in THEIR interpretation, of course).” AhHah -- That is not an accurate statement. Not all ‘religious persons’ insist that their interpretation is the only one. Your statement would cast all ‘religious persons’ in the same lot on this issue and that is simply not so.

My original post was not to you, and it was not intended to be an indictment of every single religious person that has ever walked the planet. It is a generalization, and it is a valid one. That there are exceptions should go without needing to be stated.

You seem to try to avoid the larger, obvious issue that I raised - that of contradictory faiths, by looking for loopholes in my statements. That is a consistent pattern in your attempts to debate issues on this forum.

So, Frenchy, what do you believe is the real source of Theo's faith in the trinity?

On this trinity business, do I believe that I am right and that Theo is wrong? Yes. Does my belief make it so? No. Is it possible that I am wrong? Yes. Would I admit it if I became convinced that I was wrong? Yes. Would my being wrong on this issue destroy my faith in God? No. Beliefs and doctrines are not necessarily faith.

The fact that you would still have faith that God exists should you accept the trinity was not even the question that I raised. The question is specifically about where the faith IN THE DOCTRINE IN QUESTION comes from. I believe that question was pretty clear. The question was whether contradictory faiths (such as in the trinity doctrine) should be understood by the individuals to be from God, a manifestation of God's spirit upon them, since faith is described as a fruitage of God's spirit in the Bible. Would God's spirit be the source of faith in contradictory beliefs in different persons?

That is a potentially very troubling question to persons of faith and that is the reason that I raised the question. Is that why you have avoided it?

If you are going to debate my posts, why not try to understand and stick with the subject of the post instead of trying to discredit my questions and statements with your obfuscations?

Why must you resort to these sorts of tedious responses filled with misdirection? Why not deal head on with the real issues when you choose to respond?

46

Jehovah We'll Believe When We See Signs & M...

by MDS in

truly i say, no sign will be given to this generation.".

" -- 1 cor.

-- see 1 cor.

AhHah

Frenchy,

Faith can and does come in many forms, including the faith that comes from God. You can have faith in a person and this does not mean that it is necessarily from God OR from Satan. You can have faith in a system and the same applies also. You can have faith in your own ability and…ditto. You are also confusing faith with doctrines and belief systems. What requires that all who have faith agree on everything? James said that the demons believed in God and shuddered. Their religious persuasion was certainly different from that of James’ but he nonetheless credited them with belief in God.

I am not confusing anything. Do you really think that I am not aware of the obvious you stated above?

My post was in the context of the fallacy of circular reasonings to attempt to validate faith in a belief. Did you read the link? Religious persons are often content to have faith because someone said that God told them something.

More to the point for you: Theo has strong faith that God is a trinity. You have strong faith that God is not a trinity, and that Jesus is not God. You both claim that your faith comes from God, to use your words. These faiths (supposedly in the same God, and supposedly both based on the Bible) are by definition contradictory. If one of you is wrong, then what does that imply about the other's faith? Did God himself inspire contradictory faiths in the two of you? If not, where did the "mistaken" faith come from? The usual Christian answer is that the mistaken faith comes from Satan, the Great Deceiver, who keeps "transforming himself into an angel of light that he might blind the minds of the unbelievers". So, Frenchy, what do you believe is the real source of Theo's faith in the trinity? Is it from the one true God, the Creator of the universe? If not, then why does Theo believe it so strongly?

Obviously, faith in itself is not proof of the validity of a belief. Therefore, it is meaningless when a religious person attempts to justify a belief that they cannot explain by saying "You must have faith to believe", as though that is all that need be said for someone else to accept their belief and put their faith in it also.

Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 19:16:45

33

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus in

i have been curious why the jw's and other cults claim that the bible does not support the notion of the christ as divine (god).

can anyone offer an explanation?

my reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion.

AhHah

Frenchy,

Why do the trinitarian biased translations "dare" to SUBSTITUTE “LORD” for the tetragrammaton? Is that any less of a transgression than what the NWT has done? Is that not bias?

It also belies their claims that the NW translation is always true to the original languages and is extremely accurate. They are guilty of exactly what they accuse other Bible translators of -- purposeful and willful bias to suit their own interpretations. -- AhHah. --- True. But other translators make the same claim as the WTS. That is why I don’t single one out over the other. They all do it!

I never said that other translators do not do it, did I? Why do you insist on defending them by saying "Yeah, but THEY did it too!". That doesn't seem to me a very intelligent or valid way to discuss matters of such importance. I am not attacking the JWs or the NW translators for being any less reprehensible than any others may be. Copying the sins of others should not be an excuse for those who claim to be God's only true organization, should it?

You seem to be very much a JW apololgist in your posts. In one post recently you said that they have not proven to be God's organization, but you wish that they WOULD so that you could "RUN back" into their arms. That certainly seems to influence the way you attempt to defend the JW org (and now the NW translators) in any way you can.

I noticed that you avoided directly answering the question below:

By your response above, are you saying that you consider yourself one of Jehovah's Witnesses? Do other JW's also still consider you to be one of Jehovah's Witnesses? AhHah -- My response was not in defense of the WTS. Your thread began by an attack on the NWT for its “non-trinitarian bias” and you closed your argument with the statement that you are now referencing. I was merely pointing out that I do not believe in a trinity and I have this freedom of being one of Christ’s followers.

Do you not wish to answer the question?

Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 21:10:54

33

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus in

i have been curious why the jw's and other cults claim that the bible does not support the notion of the christ as divine (god).

can anyone offer an explanation?

my reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion.

AhHah

Frenchy,

This is a side point here but you mentioned "My main point was that the translation of "Jehovah" for the Greek words for Lord and God is reflective of the WT society de-emphasis of Christ in their version of Christianity," I would like to say that I think that the emphasis SHOULD be on Jehovah more so than on Christ. This is consistent with what Jesus taught about his father. He came not for his own will but for that of the Father. He taught mankind about the Father, the Father did not teach about Christ. He is not the destination but THE WAY to the Father.

You seem to be missing the point that I thought I made very clear in my comments.

This is consistent with their insistence on de-emphasizing Christ in their doctrines and practices, and emphasizing the focus on Jehovah (Jehovah's Witnesses) and his dealings with the Israelites and the Mosaic Law Covenant. Their pseudo-Christian religion attempts to preserve the same kind of Jewish enslavement to their law code under their Pharisaical attempt to legislate Christian doctrines and practices.

The JW religion (the GB) places themselves in the position that only Christ rightly deserves. Sometimes they even place themselves above Christ by their insistence on obedience to their rules, rules which even Christ refused to make, and which he tried to liberate his followers from. In order for the JW members to accept this kind of spiritual bondage in the name of Christ, as though it were from God, the GB has had to focus more on Jehovah and his use of the Israelites and the Mosacic Law Covenant as a basis for many of their rules, rules which Christ liberated us from.

They thus detract attention from the rightful place which Christ and his liberating Christian form of worship has been assigned by God. Their insistence on inserting God's name in the NT is just one more way that they betray their callousness about how they go about creating their religious deception. They are very much a Pharisaical organization which rejects and invalidates the spirit of Christianity and, in doing so, also de-emphasizes the rightful importance of Christ in their worship. They should instead follow Christ' humble example as their spiritual head. They should refuse to go beyond God's will by refraining from assuming religious authority, which they have usurped from that which was given by God to Christ himself.

Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 13:46:27

33

The divinity of Jesus as the Christ

by Theophilus in

i have been curious why the jw's and other cults claim that the bible does not support the notion of the christ as divine (god).

can anyone offer an explanation?

my reading of the texts brings me to that conclusion.

AhHah

Theo,

Phil. 2:6 is a verse that has troubled me for a long time. It is usually contextually cross-referenced to John 1:1 and Col. 1:15-17. All of these scriptures are usually used to support the trinity. Not surprisingly, the NW translation of all of these scriptures is used by the WT society to argue for Christ NOT being God and NOT part of a trinity.

After your post I reviewed Phil. 2:1-11 in the interlinear translations I have as well as six other Bible translations that I have at home, and read a Bible Commentary discussion of those verses. I am still unclear as to how they should be understood. Trinitarians make a convincing argument with these verses as well as John 1 and Colossians 1. The WT society makes a convincing argument for their translation of the same verses.

I find myself going back to the overall context of the Gospels and Christ's references to the Father being greater than him, praying to the Father, rebuking those who called him good -- only the Father is good, coming to do the will of the Father -- not his own will, directing attention always to the Father and not to himself, asking God why he had forsaken him as he died, etc.

Why all the humility and subjection to the Father, if Christ was God himself? Why not declare himself to be God and accept worship as such? How could the sacrifice of Christ as a man be a valid ransom if he did not actually die, since God is immortal and cannot die? Why did Christ have to be resurrected after being dead for parts of three days (the sign of Jonah) if he was God? If the trinity is so important, why did Christ not attempt to teach or explain the concept while amongst men?

I know that the pat trinitarian answer to all of these questions is that the God the Father is not the same as God the Son, even though they along with the Holy Ghost (I always laugh when I say that) are all three part of God -- co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent. Maybe it is my JW indoctrination, but I have a difficult time accepting such a concept of our Creator. And it still seems to contradict the spirit of Christ's words in the Gospel, taken at face value, with no pre-conceived notion of a trinity.

This kind of doctrinal confusion from the same book makes me really question its source.

Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 3:54:34

9

What exactly is an apostate?

by notsureofmyself in

jw
friends

would someone care to give me their definition of an apostate and what it means to them?

AhHah

NotSure,

I could quote the literal definition, but I suspect you already know it, and that's not what you are looking for.

Is your question more about how God feels about persons who reject their religious group? Whether or not God still accepts the worship of those who reject organized religion (especially apostate organizations)?

Recent threads have touched on whether or not Christianity requires a human organization with authority over the worship and standing of individuals. I personally believe that Christ removed the need for a human religious authority. The individual Christian is repsonsible for his own worship and decisions.

In some cases Christians may choose to limit their own association with those that they feel represent a spiritual danger to them, but not with a lack of love or with malice or judgement. Those who reject the spirit of Christianity and invalidate it (such as JWs do with all of their pharisaical rules and regulations) are subject to being rejected by Christians who do not share their worldly abuse of Christianity. I believe that the JW org is an apostate organization, in that they have rejected and invalidated Christianity by their practices. As such, an individual Christian may rightly avoid association with them, so as to avoid spiritual contamination -- if one were to use the same scriptures that the WT society uses to justify the rejection of apostates. I believe that it should be an individual decision.

God then must ultimately choose whose worship he finds acceptable, while considering the conscience of all individuals who are attempting with an honest heart to be noble, spiritual persons. I suspect that persons of any and all and no religious affiliation may be successful in varying degrees in that effort. I find it absurd to think that Almighty God would judge a person's eternal prospects based upon the limited understanding of any human group who dares to claim to represent him and speak for him. I find it offensive that any religion or person (are you listening MDS?) would dare to make such a claim. I suspect that God does also.

For these reasons I find much of the Bible to be ridiculous in what it would have us believe about the Almighty God. Common sense and our inner sense of justice (that God put there?) tells us that much of it cannot be true. Those who are too afraid to admit the uncertainty of such a position, will instead defend the Bible's contradictory teachings as a mystery designed to test us. One could make the same claim of any other confused, and contradictory literary work -- we don't need God to produce confusion and complexity -- we can and have done that just fine on our own.

So, in summary, I do not worry about whose definition of apostasy my beliefs may or may not define. I am prepared to wait upon God to fully reveal the answers to my questions of our existence and purpose. If I die before that happens, I die with the confidence that I followed my conscience with an honest heart and with the best of intentions toward God and my fellow man. I know in my heart that is all that our Creator expects of us (if indeed he cares, and I really hope that he does).

Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 4:35:56

46

Jehovah We'll Believe When We See Signs & M...

by MDS in

truly i say, no sign will be given to this generation.".

" -- 1 cor.

-- see 1 cor.

AhHah

Simon,

That link ( http://jhuger.com/kisshank.mv ) is hilarious, but it really drives home the foolishness of circular reasonings, doesn't it?

Of course, a religious person's response is that one must have faith (but only in THEIR interpretation, of course). Which makes one wonder whether or not faith is really from God. All devout religious people have faith, and yet few of them totally agree on anything. So where does all of that "misled" faith come from? From Satan, of course! If it wasn't so sad, it would be as funny as "Kissing Hank's Ass". Hopefully, in some life we will all look back and laugh at how we tried to defend our stupidity and ignorance (maybe even MDS will laugh!).

Edited by - AhHah on 20 November 2000 1:44:35