i was slightly surprised to see that wythenshawe hall has been sold.
it's now a mosque.
this one had an attached flat where the co and his wife lived, i wonder what accommodation they put them in these days..
the most popular boys name in Britain is Mohammed.
What would you prefer? Adolf? Calm down, only pulling your leg Stan. đ
According to the JW website there is no longer a KH located in Irvine and Irvine congregation now meets in Stevenston. Did they sell the KH in Irvine, does anyone know about that?
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
Earnest, trying to follow what aqwsed12345 is saying is a bit like trampling through shifting sand: you think youâre getting somewhere but in the end thereâs nothing there. It reminds me of some of the answers you get from ChatGPT that contain all the right vocabulary and relevant scholarly names, but if you read it carefully the attribution of views is slightly off, and the sentences look like arguments in form, but contain no actual substance. Take this sentence for example:
Hurtadoâs reference to "a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century CE or so" pertains specifically to the "routinely" written form of ÎÏÏÎčÎżÏ in LXX manuscripts, not to its original use as the rendering of YHWH in the LXX.
At first it looks like itâs making a subtle distinction but on examination it evaporates into nothing. Whatâs the difference between being âroutinely writtenâ and âuse as a renderingâ? Itâs gobbdlegook masquerading as an argument. Itâs trying to say Hurtado meant the opposite of what he wrote no matter what.
The trouble with ChatGPT is that it will do exactly what you ask it to do. If you ask a human to give you a good argument against Paris being the capital of France, a human will tell you thatâs a waste of time because Paris is the capital of France. If you ask ChatGPT to give you the best arguments it can âthink ofâ then it will oblige no matter how strained the result. Hereâs what ChatGPT gave me:
If weâre arguing that Paris is not the capital of France, hereâs a compelling angle:
The capital of France is wherever the seat of government is, and historically, that hasnât always been Paris.
Thus, the argument would be: Paris's status as the capital is a matter of tradition and convenience, not an immutable fact. Other cities could be the capital, especially in a modern, decentralized France.
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
Thus, your attempt to portray Hurtado as supporting a second-century introduction of ÎÏÏÎčÎżÏ into the LXX misreads his argument.
Itâs literally what he says: âthat is a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century or so.â
If you canât understand a statement as simple as that donât expect me to engage with the rest of your verbiage. Why not simply say you think Hurtado is wrong about this, instead of trying to get him to say the opposite of what he wrote?
two images of allegheny city and a challenge.
see https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ the newest post.
.
Iâve looked through all Leolaiaâs threads and canât find it. But she may well have been commenting on someone elseâs thread. Or it could have been lost, as we know some threads have been lost or deleted over the years. But most likely itâs there somewhere, itâs just difficult to find.
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
I donât know what kind of game youâre playing here, aqwsed12345. Skehan argued that Yaho was the original form of the divine name in the LXX. Tov agreed with him. Now Eugene Ulrich agrees with them both. You are simply wrong to claim otherwise.
You write:
The claim that Hurtado concluded ÎșÏÏÎčÎżÏ entered the LXX only in the second century CE is inaccurate.
It is what Hurtado wrote:
Our manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) routinely have kyrios where the Hebrew has YHWH, but that is a scribal practice that seems to have developed sometime in the second century or so.
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/yhwh-texts-and-jesus-a-follow-up/
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
Often you are making assertions rather than making an argument. For example, you wrote:
The presence of ÎÎΩ or the paleo-Hebrew Tetragrammaton in these manuscripts must be understood as variants or later revisions, not as evidence that they were the original translation practice of the LXX.
Why âmustâ this be so? You seem to be unmoved by the manuscript evidence that led senior LXX scholars Skehan and Tov to conclude that Yaho is original and by the fact that even Larry Hurtado (an apologist for Nicene theology) concluded that kyrios didnât enter the LXX until the second century CE. If despite all the manuscript evidence, onomastica, variants, and expert opinion you still think it âmustâ be otherwise, I donât know what use is anything more than I can say.
two images of allegheny city and a challenge.
see https://truthhistory.blogspot.com/ the newest post.
.
No idea what the answer to the question in the blog post is. Will an answer be posted at one point?
Many years ago, Leolaia offered analyses of Angels and Women and Seola but after much searching I have been unable to find the threads. Maybe someone else has it?
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
While Shaw highlights that ÎÎΩ appears in magical texts, onomastica (name lists), and select Jewish papyri, this evidence does not demonstrate widespread liturgical or scriptural usage of ÎÎΩ among Jews in the 1st century CE.
Thatâs not what Shawâs book says at all. Have you read it?
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
While Shawâs work highlights that ÎÎΩ was known and used in certain Jewish contexts, this evidence does not prove it was the original or predominant rendering of YHWH in the LXX.
Neither did I claim that it does. You are not reading what I wrote. Shawâs work shows that use of the divine name Yaho was widespread among ordinary Jews. This refutes the idea that use of the divine name would not have been familiar for first century Jews when the early Christians used it. On the subject of what was written in the LXX, as I understand it, Shawâs view is that there was diversity of forms from early in the LXX.
- If the NT authors did not consider the possibility that readers might âconfuseâ YHWH with Jesus, they wrote with a level of carelessness that fundamentally undermines the inspiration and sacredness of their writings.
The NT authors went out of their way to show that Jesus is Lord in a completely different sense than God. For example, Psalm 110.1 is the most quoted OT text in the NT, precisely because it makes the distinction between Jehovah God and Jesus as messianic Lord crystal clear. It says:
Jehovah declared to my Lord:âSit at my right handUntil I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.â
Notice here that âJehovahâ (YHWH) is speaking to the messiah as âLordâ (adonai) and that the messianic Lord is clearly subordinate to God. That is how the early Christians distinguished between God and Jesus and is why this text fitted their purpose so well. This careful distinction is also maintained in Phil 2 where Jesus is given the title Lord âto the glory of God the Father.â God himself is not Lord âto the glory of anotherâ. God is almighty in his own glory. Again this text clearly distinguishes Jesus from God and subordinates him to God.
In what sense is Jesus Lord? The NT itself says that Jesus is our Lord because he died and bought us with his blood. That makes Jesus our âownerâ which is what his Lordship means in this context. This is spelled out in 2 Peter 2.1 and Jude 4. It is also the basis for the distinction between the honour due to God in Revelation 4 and the honour due to Jesus in Revelation 5. In Revelation 4 God is worthy of honour and glory because he is the one who lives forever, who created all things and because of his will they exist and were created. In chapter 5 Jesus, the lamb of God, is worthy of honour and glory because he died and gave his life that he might buy back humans from sin and death. So again, clearly, Jesus as the owner and Lord of saved humans is Lord in a very different sense from Jehovah who is the ever living God of creation.
the concept of strategic deception exists in several religious and ideological contexts.
in this article, we will explore and compare the theocratic warfare doctrine of the watchtower society and taqiyya in islam.
both concepts have parallels in their mechanisms of permitting deception for religious purposes but differ significantly in their application and historical roots.. 1. theocratic warfare: the "rahab method".
Who made the decision on this? Where is the âsmoking gun?â
The people who are responsible for introducing nomina sacra into the text are likely the same ones who discontinued using the divine name.
When I mentioned the quality of the Leviticus fragment with Yaho, what I had in mind was Peitersmaâs comment that âthe Septuagintal credentials of [the manuscript] are well nigh impeccableâ. I quote that from memory and I think thatâs the exact phrase he used.
More importantly, if Christians were using the Tetragrammaton to call upon the God of Israel, it would have caused massive controversy.
There is a lot of evidence that ordinary use of the divine name in the form Yaho was widespread among ordinary Jews in the first century. See the many sources that indicate this in Frank Shawâs book The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of IAW (2014).
Was It the Christians? If Christians systematically removed the Tetragrammaton, why did they replace it with Kyriosâa term already used for Jesus throughout the NT? This substitution only reinforces the NTâs high Christology, where Jesus is identified with the Lord of the OT (e.g., Romans 10:13 citing Joel 2:32).
Yes, because their theology had moved on from the monotheism of the NT toward a Trinitarian reading that incorporated Jesus in a triune God. Howard and Trobisch both explain this factor as important in the disappearance of the divine name from Christian texts. Here is Howardâs explanation:
Is there any way for us, at this late date, to calculate the effect which this change in the Bible had on the second century church? It is of course impossible to know with certainty, but the effect must have been significant. First, a number of passages must have taken on an ambiguity which the original lacked. For example, the second century church read, âThe Lord said to my Lordâ (Matthew 22:44, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42), a reading which is as ambiguous as it is imprecise. The first century church probably read, âYHWH said to my Lord.â
To the second century church, âPrepare the way of the Lordâ (Mark 1:3) must have meant one thing, since it immediately followed the words: âThe beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ.â But to the First Century Church it must have meant something else since they read, âPrepare the way of YHWH.â
The second century church read 1 Corinthians 1:31, âThe one who boasts, let him boast in the Lord,â which was probably considered a reference to Christ mentioned in verse 30. But to the first century church, it probably referred to God mentioned in verse 29 since they read, âThe one who boasts let him boast in YHWH.â
These examples are sufficient to suggest that the removal of the Tetragrammaton from the New Testament and its replacement with the surrogates kyrios and theos blurred the original distinction between the Lord God and the Lord Christ, and in many passages made it impossible to tell which one was meant. This is supported by the fact that in a number of places where Old Testament quotations are cited, there is a confusion in the manuscript tradition whether to read God or Christ in the discussion surrounding the quotation. Once the Tetragrammaton was removed and replaced by the surrogate âLordâ, scribes were unsure whether âLordâ meant God or Christ. As time went on, these two figures were brought into even closer unity until it was often impossible to distinguish between them. Thus it may be that the removal of the Tetragrammaton contributed significantly to the later Christological and Trinitarian debates which plagued the church of the early Christian centuries.
See the rest of his article here.
https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/the-name-of-god-in-the-new-testament/
Trobisch argues similarly in his book, focussing on 2 Cor 3.14â18 as his example, and Luise Schottroff focuses on 1 Cor 2.16 to make a similar point.
