Posts by slimboyfat

24

Why you need Christmas to understand Easter/Memorial

by Anony Mous in

so i went to a christmas evening candlelight service tonight and it hit me.

i was primarily doing christmas since leaving the jw for the children.

lots of people do it for family without really thinking of the relevance.

slimboyfat

Isn’t it sad to celebrate the birth of baby Jesus every year only for him to die three or four months later? 😜

407

Is Jesus the Creator?

by Sea Breeze in

that's what the word says.

.

colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..

slimboyfat

… and to mention, interesting aside, that according to scholar Robert Shedinger the Diatessaron provides some support for Howard’s thesis of the divine name in the original NT.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_and_titles_of_God_in_the_New_Testament#Diatessaron

113

Luke 23:43 the NWT

by Ade in

luke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.

nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.

now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.

slimboyfat

Claims that the Coptic supports the Watchtower interpretation are unsubstantiated when compared to broader manuscript evidence.

Another examples of meaningless nonsense. What does the sentence even mean? It sounds like it should be saying that the Coptic doesn’t support the WT interpretation. But that isn’t true. Or it could be saying that it doesn’t matter that the Coptic supports the WT interpretation. But really it doesn’t mean anything. It sounds vaguely like a refutation but without actually saying anything.

7

JW vs. Christian Message To the World - The Kingdom of God, or Reconciliation with God?

by Sea Breeze in

after stuydying jw's for over half a century, i haved concluded the following: .

old light / new light is a primary doctrine of jehovah’s witneses.

when they abandon on old prophecy or change a doctrine, they characterize this as “old light”.

slimboyfat

JWs don’t have grace, they don’t know grace, some of them don’t even say grace. 😁

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

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".

slimboyfat

Hurtado does not argue that Kyrios was introduced into the LXX in the second century CE by Christians or otherwise.

Yes he does. Anyone can read it here.

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/05/07/yhwh-texts-and-jesus-a-follow-up/

Why are you lying? What is the point of this?

Hurtado elaborates his view of the implication of copies of the LXX that Paul used containing the divine name. The who argument relies on the point that the first century LXX used the divine name not kyrios:

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.
So if, for example, the Greek OT manuscripts that Paul consulted had YHWH retained in Hebrew characters, this would have meant that the original referent was “God” YHWH. So, for Paul then to apply to Jesus a number of texts that originally referred explicitly to YHWH did not result from some confusion on his part, or some ambiguity in the text. Instead, this was a fully conscious and deliberate exegetical move. One could argue that the rendering of YHWH as kyrios in LXX manuscripts could have allowed for a certain ambiguity, for from earliest moments the risen Jesus was referred to as “the Lord” (the kyrios). But, given what appears to have been the dominant treatment of the tetragrammaton in earlier manuscripts of the Greek OT writings, this suggestion doesn’t work.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

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".

slimboyfat

Again, out of interest I asked ChatGPT about the divine name in the NT. I think the argument for the divine name in the NT could be asserted more strongly, but overall it seems a fair summary:

Was the divine name originally used in the New Testament?

The question of whether the divine name (YHWH) was originally used in the New Testament remains unresolved, as there is no definitive evidence in the earliest surviving manuscripts. However, scholars and researchers have proposed several possibilities, based on the cultural, religious, and textual context of the time. Here's a detailed look:

Arguments Supporting the Use of the Divine Name in the New Testament

Jewish Context of Early Christianity:

The New Testament writers were primarily Jewish and would have been familiar with the use of the Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Early Christians may have initially followed the Jewish custom of preserving the divine name in scriptural quotations.

Evidence from Early Septuagint Manuscripts:

Some early copies of the Greek Septuagint, the Old Testament translation used by many early Christians, retained the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew letters (e.g., יהוה) or transliterated into Greek characters.
If the New Testament writers quoted from such manuscripts, they may have included the divine name in some form.

Theological Implications:

The presence of the divine name in the New Testament could have emphasized the link between the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian message, underscoring the continuity of divine authority.

Arguments Against the Use of the Divine Name in the New Testament

Absence in Surviving Manuscripts:

The earliest extant New Testament manuscripts (dating from the 2nd century CE onwards) consistently use κύριος (Kyrios, "Lord") or θεός (Theos, "God") in places where references to YHWH might be expected.
No manuscript contains the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew or transliterated form.

Greek Linguistic Tradition:

By the time of the New Testament's composition, the Greek-speaking Jewish and Christian communities commonly used "Kyrios" as a substitute for YHWH, following the practice of the Septuagint.

Jewish Practices and Christian Adaptation:

Jewish reverence for the divine name led to its avoidance in speech and its replacement in writing with substitutes like "Adonai" or "HaShem." Early Christians, many of whom came from Jewish backgrounds, likely adopted similar practices.

Theoretical Scenarios

Some scholars hypothesize that the Tetragrammaton might have appeared in the autographs (the original writings of the New Testament) but was replaced with "Kyrios" or "Theos" during later copying and transmission, reflecting the broader scribal practices of the time.
Alternatively, the New Testament authors may have followed the established Greek translation tradition and used "Kyrios" or "Theos" from the outset.

Conclusion

There is no concrete evidence that the divine name was originally used in the New Testament, but it is plausible that early drafts or quotations of Scripture could have included it, especially if the writers were quoting from Hebrew texts or early Septuagint versions retaining the Tetragrammaton. The consistent use of "Kyrios" and "Theos" in surviving manuscripts suggests that, even if the divine name was present initially, it was soon replaced as Christianity spread into Greek-speaking contexts.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

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".

slimboyfat

Hurtado does not suggest that Christians introduced Kyrios into the LXX.

Hurtado doesn’t specify Christian or Jewish, but he does say the practice of writing kyrios in the LXX, “seems to have developed sometime in the second century”, which is clearly at odds with Pietersma, Rösel and yourself who argue it was the original rendering in the LXX.

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

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".

slimboyfat

Hurtado argues that kyrios was an oral substitute for the divine name. I have never disputed that, and acting as though I did is a red herring. Whether Hurtado is correct on that, or to what extent Yaho was also used, especially where Yaho was written, is another issue.
Hurtado also argues that kyrios was introduced into the LXX text in the second century CE. This is what you have been disputing all along. In a way, Hurtado’s claim is an even stronger claim than Skehan, Tov, and Ulrich who argued that Yaho was original because, as far as I know, they didn’t rule out kyrios as a rendering in the LXX before the second century CE. It’s also stronger than Shaw, Meyer and others who argue for diversity of renderings, including kyrios, from early in the LXX’s transmission. Nevertheless, it’s what Hurtado wrote. It aligns somewhat with Paul Kahle’s early view that the LXX, so far as it was written by Jews and for Jews, used the divine name in the form of the Tetragrammaton, and that kyrios was introduced to the LXX by Christians.
Out of interest I asked ChatGPT what was the original rendering of the divine name in the LXX and this was the answer.

What was the original rendering of the divine name in the Septuagint or Old Greek version of the Jewish scriptures?

The rendering of the divine name (YHWH) in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, has been a subject of significant scholarly interest. Here’s an overview:

Original Rendering in the Septuagint

Tetragrammaton in Hebrew Characters:
The earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint likely retained the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in paleo-Hebrew or square Hebrew script within the Greek text. For example, some fragments like Papyrus Fouad 266 use Hebrew characters for the divine name, instead of translating it into Greek.
Kyrios (Κύριος):
Over time, the divine name was often replaced with the Greek word Κύριος (Kyrios), meaning "Lord." This reflects the Jewish tradition of substituting the divine name with Adonai ("Lord") during reading to avoid pronouncing it.
Other Substitutions:
In some cases, the name may have been rendered as Theos (Θεός), meaning "God," or another reverential term, but Kyrios became the dominant rendering.

Historical Evolution

Early Manuscripts: The use of the Tetragrammaton indicates that early Jewish translators likely sought to preserve the sacredness of the divine name even within a Greek-speaking context.
Later Developments: As the LXX became widely used by Christians, who interpreted Kyrios as referring to Jesus in many contexts, the divine name was increasingly replaced with Kyrios in both Jewish and Christian copies.

Evidence from Manuscripts

Papyrus Fouad 266 (2nd century BCE): This manuscript includes the Greek text of Deuteronomy with the Tetragrammaton written in Hebrew characters.
4Q120 (1st century BCE): A fragment of Leviticus written in Greek contains the divine name as IAO (likely a transliteration of YHWH).
Christian Codices: By the 3rd and 4th centuries CE, major Christian manuscripts like the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus consistently use Kyrios.

Conclusion

The original rendering of the divine name in the Septuagint was likely the Tetragrammaton in Hebrew characters or possibly IAO in some cases. Over time, this was replaced with Kyrios in line with Jewish liturgical practices and later Christian theological interpretations.

That conclusion seems like a fair summary of current scholarly views, a few outliers such as Rösel and aqwsed who downplay the use of the divine name in the early OG/LXX text notwithstanding.

31

Wythenshawe Kingdom Hall - Sold

by AdamCzarnobay in

jw
friends

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..

slimboyfat

the most popular boys name in Britain is Mohammed.

What would you prefer? Adolf? Calm down, only pulling your leg Stan. 😉

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?

51

Theocratic Warfare and Taqiyya

by aqwsed12345 in

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".

slimboyfat

Earnest, trying to follow what aqwsed12345 is saying is a bit like trampling through shifting sand: you think you’re getting somewhere but in the end there’s 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:

Hurtado’s 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 Κύριος in LXX manuscripts, not to its original use as the rendering of YHWH in the LXX.

At first it looks like it’s making a subtle distinction but on examination it evaporates into nothing. What’s the difference between being “routinely written” and “use as a rendering”? It’s gobbdlegook masquerading as an argument. It’s 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 that’s a waste of time because Paris is the capital of France. If you ask ChatGPT to give you the best arguments it can “think of” then it will oblige no matter how strained the result. Here’s what ChatGPT gave me:

If we’re arguing that Paris is not the capital of France, here’s a compelling angle:

The capital of France is wherever the seat of government is, and historically, that hasn’t always been Paris.

Historical Precedent: During World War II, the French government moved to Vichy, making it the de facto capital from 1940 to 1944. By this logic, Paris is not inherently the capital—it’s a matter of political designation.
Centralization Criticism: Some argue that Paris's dominance creates inequality between regions. A decentralized France might designate a more geographically central city, such as Lyon, as its capital to better represent the nation as a whole.
Symbolic Reallocation: As Strasbourg hosts key European institutions and embodies unity, it could claim a more modern role as France’s "true" capital within the European context.

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.