slimboyfat

Joined

• started 531 topics
• posted 17,310 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  171

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

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Earnest, some argue that Origen was the first to list the NT canon as we now have it, as early as 250 CE.

  https://michaeljkruger.com/what-is-the-earliest-complete-list-of-the-canon-of-the-new-testament/
  
• 
  171

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

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Okay, Marcionism did linger on for a considerable time, and it was important for the early development of the canon in general. But have you got any evidence it had a direct bearing on codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century? And why would it matter to the question at hand about Rev 3.14 in codex Sinaiticus?
• 
  171

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

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Wow Kaleb Out Of Kindergarten might be more apt name 😳
• 
  171

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

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Good points, Earnest, I agree with you on the unlikelihood of Tischendorf’s account.

  If I remember correctly, codex Sinaiticus places the non-canonical books after Revelation.

  It’s a bit odd that KalebOutWest says:

  “When the Codex was assembled, the Marcionist threat was a problem for Christianity“.

  Marcion and Marcionism was a 2nd century phenomenon. Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century. I don’t think the historical knowledge of our interlocutor matches his rhetorical bluster.
• 
  17

  I wrote and Published a Book About Being a Teen in an ExJW Family (thanks Lloyd Evans)

  by pr0ner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so as the title suggests i wrote a book why is lloyd to thank?

  first let's rewind a little.

  when i was a teenager i was a pretty gifted writer and was put in academic and ap classes for english/lit classes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  There’s nothing wrong with your title. It’s good.👍 I just thought you might be interested to know about Nate’s book on a similar theme and that he was once a poster here too. He had a much more popular book called “Jehovah Unmasked”, which is still in print.

  Another teenage JW memoir was

  https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Teenage-Jesus-Jerk-DuShane/dp/1593762631/

  Which was turned into a movie

  https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Teenage-Jesus-Jerk-Stoltz/dp/B07PNK9YRX/
• 
  171

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

  by slimboyfat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Just on point of fact, contrary to aqwsed12345 above, the latest edition of the BDAG Lexicon says that “first created” is the probable meaning of “beginning” in Rev 3.14. The full entry for the Greek word in that Lexicon can be read on the following blog, the relevant comment coming under the paragraph numbered 3.

  https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/03/revelation-314-and-bdag-edited-for.html

  (Oops, I see Blotty has already quoted this entry. Sorry for overlooking that. However, it makes aqwsed12345’s subsequent inaccurate statement all the more curious.)

  Another thing that should be taken into consideration when looking at texts such as Rev 3.14; Col 1.15, John 1:1 and so on is that these passages are clearly drawing on the Jewish Wisdom tradition. In that tradition Wisdom was spoken about as God’s first creation, an archangel, or principal angel beside God. Therefore it’s entirely within the cultural context of the period to understand these passages in the NT along those lines. It’s those who wish to read those passages within a fourth century Trinitarian context that are interpreting them outside of their historical setting.

  Elsewhere, of course, the NT also makes a careful distinction between God as the source of creation and Jesus as the one through whom God created. Interpreting this verse to say that Jesus is the source of creation would seem to contradict those other passages. (John 1.3; 1 Cor 8.6; Col 1.16; Heb 1.2)
• 
  17

  I wrote and Published a Book About Being a Teen in an ExJW Family (thanks Lloyd Evans)

  by pr0ner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so as the title suggests i wrote a book why is lloyd to thank?

  first let's rewind a little.

  when i was a teenager i was a pretty gifted writer and was put in academic and ap classes for english/lit classes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  Thanks, I’ll get a copy. 👍

  I wonder if you’re aware of the earlier poster on this site (nearly 20 years ago now 😮) who wrote a memoir with a similar name. It’s out of print now.

  https://www.amazon.com/I-Was-Teenage-Jehovahs-Witness/dp/0977999432/
• 
  17

  I wrote and Published a Book About Being a Teen in an ExJW Family (thanks Lloyd Evans)

  by pr0ner in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  so as the title suggests i wrote a book why is lloyd to thank?

  first let's rewind a little.

  when i was a teenager i was a pretty gifted writer and was put in academic and ap classes for english/lit classes.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  If it’s JW related I might like to buy a copy too. I used to try to buy all JWs related books that were published but it became too many - though I still like to buy some. 👍
• 
  299

  Who told the first lie?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  The Christian Bible says that. But it’s just because a later work retrofits a character from an earlier work without regard to the actual development or original purpose of the source material, not because any of it is actually true.

  The book of Genesis is itself a reworking of an earlier source. So why prioritise the reworking of the story by the compiler of Genesis over the reworking of the story by the compilers of the Bible?

  What do you mean by “actually true”? We can only interpret the story in a context, whether you pick an early Jewish context, or a later Christian context, those are interpretive choices. We don’t have access to the story in its original form, so it’s not as if you can claim a pristine original that must be sacrosanct. One contextual reading is not “actually true”, and the other “false”. They are both narratives and make sense in their own terms. Unless you are arguing that there really was a snake in an actual garden of Eden and that one interpretation is closer to that reality than another, and therefore “actually true”. I can’t imagine that’s what you mean.
• 
  299

  Who told the first lie?

  by nicolaou in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  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.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  If you’re not interested in the Bible’s answer to the question who told the first lie then I don’t know what we’re talking about. Even if you think it’s fiction, I don’t know what the point is of imposing a different answer than the one given by the Bible itself. You could argue Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz wasn’t from Kansas because she didn’t have a Kansas accent. Okay but what’s your point. In the film she’s from Kansas.

  If you’re making an argument about the original intention of the author of Genesis against what later Bible writers interpreted that story to mean, then I don’t think it’s as straightforward as you might imagine for a number of reasons. Who the original author was, what form the story originally took, and what it meant to the first audience is perhaps beyond recovery at this point. It’s entirely possible the original author meant something completely different than the text can currently divulge because it has been adapted and now appears in a context which it didn’t originally have. So it’s not as easy as you might think to say that later Bible writers got the original meaning wrong but you have got it right, and this is what it is. Even if you could be certain about original meaning of the Genesis story (presumably before there was a book of Genesis, an earlier source that we don’t have access to) by the author in its original form, whatever that was, it’s still different from the meaning it currently exhibits as part of the Bible as a whole.

  While it’s true the Bible arose as a diverse set of documents that accumulated and adapted over time, it now appears as an edited collection and it makes sense to read it in that way. It’s not a coincidence, for example, that the book of Revelation recapitulates and resolves issues set up in Genesis, including the identity and fate of Satan. If you say you are not interested in the answer the Bible itself supplies to the question of what was going on in Genesis, who was the first liar, and so on, fair enough, but I don’t know what we’re doing then. The Bible itself says Satan was the original serpent and the first liar.