slimboyfat

Joined

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

Posts by slimboyfat

• 
  39

  What happened to Marvin Schilmer and his Blog against the JW's?

  by TerryWalstrom in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspoturl=https://marvinshilmer.blogspot.com/2013/07/complete-donation-what-happened.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  He went underground, like Vincent 🤔
• 
  51

  Interesting that the other cult-cousins are going thru nearly identical hemmoraging of members.....

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i still read on reddit.

  (though no longer post) occasionally, i'll venture over to the ex-seventh day adventist (sda) sub and catch up a bit.

  it's been a long time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  I should have said: their numbers are up compared with before the pandemic.

  In contrast with most churches that are down massively compared with before the pandemic.
• 
  51

  Interesting that the other cult-cousins are going thru nearly identical hemmoraging of members.....

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i still read on reddit.

  (though no longer post) occasionally, i'll venture over to the ex-seventh day adventist (sda) sub and catch up a bit.

  it's been a long time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  The vast majority of churches declined dramatically during the pandemic. The only two exceptions I know are Seventh-day Adventists and JWs.

  https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/churches-attendance/
  
• 
  51

  Interesting that the other cult-cousins are going thru nearly identical hemmoraging of members.....

  by WingCommander in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i still read on reddit.

  (though no longer post) occasionally, i'll venture over to the ex-seventh day adventist (sda) sub and catch up a bit.

  it's been a long time.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  slimboyfat

  In Scotland the number of Seventh-Day Adventist congregations and attendance went up during the pandemic. In Carlisle in the north of England I noticed the following sign posted on their church.

  
  
• 
  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

  Bingo. But somehow you have literalized these passages just as the 4th Arian 'heretics' did.

  peacefulpete, both sides in the fourth century debate took Wisdom/Word/Son to be a person at the beginning with God, the difference is Arians maintained the distinction that the Son was created and subordinate to God, whereas proto-Trinitarians turned him into a coequal.

  The idea that God had an angelic junior in heaven was not an Arian or even a Christian innovation. Jewish scholar Peter Schäfer writes:

  Summarizing the range of the [second temple Jewish] texts, it becomes apparent how many of them view the enigmatic godlike or semi-godlike figure alongside God to be an angel. This starts with the angel Michael in Daniel 7, the source of almost all further developments, and climaxes in the Qumran texts …Christianity appropriated these binitarian rudiments and developed them further based on the ideas of the Son of Man and Logos.

  Peter Schäfer, Two Gods in Heaven: Jewish Concepts of God in Antiquity (2020), pages 87 and 88.
• 
  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

  Some Christians base their belief in the Trinity on tradition. Others claim they can base it on the Bible alone. Some strands of Christianity, such as orthodox and Coptic churches have never used a Latin text of the Bible.

  I don’t think anyone was saying codex Sinaiticus is a doctrinal authority in itself, but the point was that it indicates how the text of Rev 3.14 was understood by early readers.

  Aside from that, Sinaiticus is an early witness, and most textual critics also consider it an important witness to the text of the NT.
• 
  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.