Posts by slimboyfat

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

Thanks for the explanation, it makes a lot of sense. I would point out a few things. It’s legitimate for you to adopt the position that the church doesn’t need to justify its position and that others must prove it wrong. At the same time you shouldn’t be surprised that others don’t share that perspective, so there may be an impasse on that point.

To explain why I quote scholars rather than my own inferences from grammar and so on: I am no expert on grammar, syntax, text criticism and so on, so I think it would be presumptuous for me to make definite statements of my own. Very few experts have earned that right in my opinion, not everybody who knows some of the language or text history. When I quote a scholar who agrees with JWs I am not arguing that this proves JWs are correct because scholars agree with them. What I am saying is that, since there are senior scholars in the field who agree with JWs, it is at least a legitimate way of reading the text and should be respected. Because opponents of JWs sometimes give the impression that there is no support for their rendering of John 1.1, for example, when in reality there is quite a lot of support from a variety of competent scholars who approach the text from different perspectives. This is certainly lost in the rhetoric of some anti-JW literature that talks about “monstrous translation”, “polytheists”, “breaking all rules of grammar”, and so on. Such commentators reveal their hand by their rhetoric; serious scholars don’t often talk in such terms.

JWs don’t enjoy much support for all their positions: such as on chronology, or in the past on the frequency of earthquakes, or further back, on the nature of the pyramids. JWs have never enjoyed support from experts on those topics and could rightly be held up for that. On the other hand, mainstream scholarly opinion agrees with JWs that the Trinity is not taught in the Bible, and many scholars agree that Jesus was viewed as an angel, God’s first creation, separate and distinct from God by the early Christians. That doesn’t prove JWs are correct but it is worth pointing out that senior scholars do support them on these issues.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

You didn’t say if that was you in the bookshop. How many people are there wandering around looking for Garrigou-Lagrange in Latin?

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

On Robert Kraft and Larry Hurtado you are trying to make a round peg fit in a square hole. You were correct the first time when you wrote that Kraft argued that Jews were perhaps the first to use nomina sacra (he was open about the possibility and awaited further MS evidence) and Hurtado argued that ‘Jesus’ was the first nomen sacrum. Those two propositions cannot be reconciled. You are trying to blur the issue by saying that ‘Jewish Christians’ might have originated the practice. Another word for Jewish Christians in this period is simply ‘Christians’, and that’s not what Robert Kraft had in mind. He meant Jews, not Christians, or even ‘Jewish Christians’. If Hurtado is correct that ‘Jesus’ was the first nomen sacrum (based on numerology from Genesis and a comment in Barnabas which Colin Roberts had already identified) then the practice originated with Christians, not Jews. The fact that Jewish scribal practice around the divine name in some way influenced nomina sacra notation is recognised by everyone and is beside the point.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

I think the greatest theologian of the 20th century is Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, I think you haven't even heard of him because you're only looking for Dan Brown-style authors.

I met a Catholic in a large secondhand bookshop in England a few months ago who asked me if I knew where to find a book by Garrigou-Lagrange. He was in his 20s and had a girlfriend waiting around for him. He reminded me a bit of Jacob Rees-Mogg. I was able to find a book by this author in English but he said he preferred one in Latin. Was that you? Why was anyone writing in Latin in the 20th century anyway? I asked the young man that question but didn’t really get a response. He also made a derogatory comment about Han Küng as a heretic too. I didn’t pursue further conversation.

In an earlier post you agreed that EP Sanders was a respected scholar but that you disagree with his view. Now you're calling scholars you don’t agree with quacks. This is a deterioration.

The page you posted of scholars on the NWT is a tremendous resource and I think quite useful. If you read the entries carefully, among the Trinitarian scholars who disagree with the NWT, there is also a significant amount of respect and support for the NWT - more than one would be led to expect by theological opponents of JWs in any case.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

Your assertion that the NWT rendering of John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" is grammatically correct is not supported by most reputable Greek scholars.

Yes the rendering “a god” is supported by some of the most reputable scholars such as Adela Yarbro Collins, one of the most respected biblical scholars around. Even Trinitarian scholars who do not support the translation have admitted it is grammatically correct but do not support it on theological grounds.

Scholars who argue for a qualitative understanding of "theos" in John 1:1c emphasize that John was identifying the Logos as fully divine, not as one among many lesser gods.

Jesus himself indicated that he is a lesser God than his Father because he stated that his Father is the only true God in John 17.3, and in John chapter 10 he justified his own limited divinity by pointing out that creatures are called gods in Psalm 82. That’s an odd argument to make unless Jesus was clearly indicating that his divinity is on a level with other creatures and less than God almighty.

You argue with Robert Kraft that nomina sacra, “originated among Jews and was taken over and elaborated by Christians”. You also argue with Larry Hurtado that nomina sacra, “likely began with the abbreviation of the name of Jesus and then expanded to include other key titles, such as ‘Lord’ and ‘God.’” You do realise that those propositions contradict each other? Because, obviously, if Jews originated the practice of nomina sacra they would not have started with the name ‘Jesus’, and conversely, if the first nomina sacra was ‘ Jesus’, then obviously the practice originated with Christians, not Jews. So which are you actually arguing for?

19

The World Today

by peacefulpete in

jw
friends

i've been meaning to share some recent experiences that defy the usual tropes about the 'world gone to hell' or 'people now days".. as some of you may remember i was seriously ill for a while and had to close my business and shop.

now, as it seems i have beaten it, i put up a sign again advertising that in a limited way i'm back.. what amazes me is how many times over the past 2 years customers and even competition have written and called to express their concern and best wishes.

just last week i had a personal visit of someone who i thought of as a rival, come in and shake my hand sincerely happy to see me up and around.

slimboyfat

I am very sorry to hear about you losing to your wife, Phizzy.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

You say:

He uses language familiar to Jewish readers like 'archangel' but does not suggest the Logos is a secondary god, in fact he argues against that.

Philo says:

For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the most high One and Father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God (deuteron theon) who is his Logos. Questionis in Genesim 2:62, quoted in Two Gods in Heaven (2020) by Peter Schäfer.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

The scholars who offer interpretations that support JW readings are not themselves JWs, they have a variety of backgrounds and views, including liberal Christians, atheists, agnostics, Jews, and others. Whereas scholars who read the Trinity into the Bible are themselves invariably Trinitarian believers.

There was an interesting exchange the Expository Times where the Trinitarian scholar Gerald O’Collins complained that Paul Holloway had not paid sufficient attention to Christian tradition and dogma when he wrote his commentary on Philippians which concludes that Paul believed Jesus is an angel. Holloway’s response to O’Collins is summarised in the abstract as follows:

Gerald O’Collins’s insistence that scholars read Paul’s encomium to Christ in Phil 2:6-11 as anticipating later Christian orthodoxy confuses theological apologetics for historical interpretation. His claim that Paul anticipates Nicene Christology is anachronistic, tendentious, and methodologically confused. Phil 2:6-11 expresses a Jewish angel Christology, not a teleological foreshadowing of Nicene orthodoxy. A close reading of O’Collins’s essay is instructive at a number of levels.

In a footnote Holloway makes the following comment on the topic of objectivity:

Conservative apologists often introduce a false equivalency here, claiming that critical historians are no less biased than they themselves are. But there is a vast difference between being a finite human being with a limited perspective and unconscious biases and an ideologue with an agenda that cannot be challenged and to which all evidence must bow. Objectivity, like other large and important values such as justice and love, is a stubbornly elusive goal, but it matters if one tries.

The whole response is well worth reading.
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/85377748/Ideology_and_Exesgsis_A_Response_to_Gerald_O_Collins-libre.pdf?1651541037=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DIdeology_and_Exegesis_A_Response_to_Gera.pdf&Expires=1728238330&Signature=E~pKmTslWhatFRcPA-PULWHJKfe8CNfedf9Dmi6FwG3CHs1~-QTIXeQ1D1atDvy1~kfbjP~ejTCK~ctaAqlUAaXO9klI7PqZJowXk5A9~zG0NM41RteCq-4H3c7LGhgwt9h6-Sxm8F8i1R7l4uLkt~OJADKUVKi0VJCWevOQIVmtq18ChQ-5JbFyf1VTN0WsesoHpVZC0hJlkjeIELL-0dJTr7UJp3RypIjRNCSMkAJ48LprCaqc~RWRSxBIehpmNw1pUKolx7tHkv4PcYXRWXF2VGZjtDsMZTF6D~v3Pa9nUsiUPKaEDQkUceAF8OQinTx9J1PmibsJKVCpOQb1Zg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

slimboyfat

How does it come about that when experts examine the biblical texts without any prior faith commitment they tend to draw conclusions similar to JWs about the meaning of key passages such as John 1 and Phil 2? Whereas scholars who claim to find the Trinity in the Bible are invariably those with a prior commitment to the dogma. Doesn’t this tend to indicate that an objective reading of the texts contradicts the Trinity?

4

Why do most ordinary Christians agree with JWs that Jesus is God’s first creation?

by slimboyfat in

in a book which attempts to refute jw christology, the trinitarian scholar greg lanier begins his argument with the surprising admission that a majority of evangelical christians agree with jws that jesus is god’s first creation.

a 2018 survey by ligonier ministries and lifeway research found that nearly 95 percent of self-described evangelical christians affirm the trinity, but simultaneously, about 80 percent believe that jesus christ is the "first and greatest being created by god.

" the shocking thing is that these respondents do not appear to realize the stark contradiction in these two positions.. greg lanier, is jesus truly god?

slimboyfat

In a book which attempts to refute JW Christology, the Trinitarian scholar Greg Lanier begins his argument with the surprising admission that a majority of Evangelical Christians agree with JWs that Jesus is God’s first creation.

A 2018 survey by Ligonier Ministries and LifeWay Research found that nearly 95 percent of self-described evangelical Christians affirm the Trinity, but simultaneously, about 80 percent believe that Jesus Christ is the "first and greatest being created by God." The shocking thing is that these respondents do not appear to realize the stark contradiction in these two positions.
Greg Lanier, Is Jesus Truly God? How the Bible Teaches the Divinity of Christ (2020), page 14.

While it might at first appear surprising that 80% of Evangelicals agree with JWs that Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God, this finding is in line with other surveys of the beliefs of ordinary Christians.

For example, the book Ordinary Christology: Who Do You Say I Am? Answers from the pews (2012) by Ann Christie, conducted a qualitative analysis of Christian believers who made statements such as:

Bruce
'I do see it as, sort of, God being at the top and Jesus being at the right hand-side or just below, however you want to describe it.'
'I would see [Jesus] as something slightly less than God.' (page 56)

Adding:

Many talk about Jesus as God's creation, using phrases such as, 'God produced Jesus', 'God created Jesus', 'Jesus was God's creation'.

Which raises the question why, despite centuries of Christian dogma denying that Jesus was created, do so many ordinary Christians agree with JWs that Jesus was created by God? Although JWs have been preaching their message with unprecedented vigour for over a century, it would be hasty to conclude this is the reason most ordinary Christians agree with JWs on this topic. A simpler explanation lies in the fact that ordinary Christians have drawn the reasonable inference from the plain language of scripture on the subject. A son is ordinarily younger and subordinate to his father; Jesus sits at the right hand of God; and he is described as the “firstborn of all creation”. Despite the efforts of Trinitarian dogmaticians over many centuries, ordinary Christians draw the obvious conclusion from these biblical images and phrases.