Posts by Earnest

25

Do we have "original" indipendent documents proving that Rutherford was an alcoholic?

by psyco in

i was wondering if you could prove with "original" independent documents that rutherford was an alcoholic.... .

i read penton, but since he is a former jw he could not be considered an independent source.... .

Earnest

The Olin Moyle Trial can be accessed here, and while Moyle accuses Rutherford of being pro-liquor in his letter (Exhibit 4), he doesn't accuse him of being drunk.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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.

Earnest

slimboyfat, in your post above you quoted from the book King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Messianic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature (p.203) which says :

In Revelation the evidence suggests that he is God’s first creature, namely, the principle angel.

Part of that evidence is Revelation 10:1 which refers to "a strong angel descending from heaven, arrayed with a cloud, and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was like the sun, and his legs were like pillars of fire", who had an opened scroll (cp. Revelation 5:5,9).

Did the scribe of codex Sinaiticus understand that Revelation 10:1 referred to Jesus a.k.a. the Son of Man?

Whereas the reading should be "and a rainbow was upon his head..." (και hη ιρις επι της κεφαλης αυτου...), the scribe of codex Sinaiticus changed this to read "and hair was on his head..." (καὶ hἡ θρὶξ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ...).

Juan Hernández writes regarding this (p.110), that

It is likely that the replacement of ‘rainbow’ with ‘hair’ is a harmonization to Revelation [1:13-15], where the glorified Son of Man is also described as having ‘hair’, αἱ τρίχες. The fact that various characteristics of the Strong Angel already echo those of the Son of Man increases the likelihood that the change is meant to draw the two even closer. To this we might add that there was already an exegetical tradition in place that equated the two figures. Victorinus of Pettau (in the third century) and Tyconius (in the fourth) assert that the Strong Angel was in fact the Son of Man.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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.

Earnest

KalebOutWest : The verse [Revelation 3:14] has not been altered. We have the original reading.

As the OP is referring to the codex Sinaiticus, it is quite clear the verse has been altered. I show below the Greek and English text of Nestle-Aland 28 and codex Sinaiticus for comparison.

Revelation 3:14

Sinaiticus

και τω αγγελω τηϲ εν λαοδικια εκκληϲιαϲ γραψο ταδε λεγει hο αμη και hο μαρτυϲ hο πιϲτοϲ και hο αληθινοϲ και hη αρχη τηϲ εκκληϲιαϲ του θυ

And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, and the faithful and true witness, and the beginning of the church of God;

NA28

και τω αγγελω τηϲ εν λαοδικεια εκκληϲιαϲ γραψον ταδε λεγει hο αμην hο μαρτυϲ hο πιϲτοϲ και αληθινοϲ hη αρχη τηϲ κτιϲεωϲ του θεου

And to the angel of the congregation in Laodicea write: These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God;

Whether the "original" (by which I presume you mean NA28 or ECM) reading was harmed or not, is not the point. The point is why the copyist of the fourth century manuscript changed the text from "the beginning of the creation by God" to "the beginning of the church of God". This cannot be explained by a slip of the pen or skipping a line whilst copying. It is a deliberate alteration of the text. You can see in the Greek text there is no similarity between κτιϲεωϲ and εκκληϲιαϲ. And the noteworthy thing is that the correctors (of which there were several) failed to correct it for three hundred years, that is until the seventh century.

KalebOutWest : Besides, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text whatsoever. The dogma was set in 325 CE at the Council of Nicea.

Of course, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text as it offers no support for it. On the contrary. But the fact that Arius asserted that the Son was the beginning of all creatures, using the same wording as Revelation 3:14, indicates that he was familiar with the expression.

Revelation was known and used long before the Council of Nicaea. Justin Martyr (c.100-165) shows a clear knowledge of it in his discussion of the ‘Millenium of Peace’ (see his Dialogue with Trypho 81.4). The Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, relating to the persecution of Christians in Gaul about 177, quotes from Revelation 22. Also, parts of it are found in several papyri prior to the fourth century: P. Chester Beatty 3 (P47) originally contained the whole of Revelation and dates to the late 3rd century. P98, containing parts of the first chapter, is dated to the late 2nd or early 3rd century. The book must obviously have been recognised some time before then to end up in Egypt in the second/third century.

Whether or not it was included in some official canon is irrelevant. Quite clearly the copyist who wrote codex Sinaiticus thought it important enough to include it and considered 3:14 to be influential enough to have to change it.

171

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

by slimboyfat in

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.

Earnest

Interesting, slim. In Bart Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" he discusses Hernandez's dissertation on Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse and says :

Among his significant conclusions, Hernandez argues that Codex Sinaiticus reflects an anti-Arian tendency in the book of Revelation. Passages that refer to Christ as a creature (3:14), portray him as an angel (10:1), or attribute to him creaturely functions (3:16) are altered in this witness.

Certainly, if the Greek readers in the fourth century didn't think 3:14 referred to the first creature, why would they alter it?

4

Sex Abuse & Jehovah’s Witnesses: Survivors Share Stories in The Witnesses, a New Oxygen Series

by Tahoe in

https://uk.style.yahoo.com/news/sex-abuse-jehovah-witnesses-survivors-192755261.html.

Earnest

This "New Oxygen Series" was in February 2020. It was reported here at the time.

22

Do JWs Get Excited About WT Publications Any More?

by NotFormer in

memory from long ago: my old mate from high school lived next door to a jw and was often "treated" to the latest jw literature.

when the "you can live forever in paradise on earth"* book came out, this neighbour waxed lyrical about how good this book was and how powerful the message was.

he acted really keen about it, like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Earnest

Slidin Fast, you must mean 1968 (not 1998). I remember that too. That combined with the 6-month study was an exciting time.

26

Still Confused About The FDS

by NotFormer in

this was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.

if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.

Earnest

NotFormer : Yet the GB, who are Jesus' brothers, refer to [the "other sheep"] as brothers and sisters. But how can that be?

This question reminded me that when the "other sheep" were first identified (they were also called Jonadabs) they were not included among Jehovah's witnesses, were not invited to the Memorial, and were addressed as friends or people of goodwill, not as brothers.

The "other sheep" were understood to be people in general who were devoted to righteousness, even though they were not dedicated to God or spirit-begotten, the ones of whom Rutherford spoke in 1918 when he said "millions now living may never die". In the 1935 Washington convention (to which Jonadabs were invited) they were identified with the "great crowd" of Revelation. In 1938 the Jonadabs were specifically invited to be present at the Memorial as companions of the remnant and thereafter became a greater part of the congregations.

There is a full discussion of this in the 15 February 1966 Watchtower article Identifying the Present-Day Beneficiaries [of the New Covenant].

27

LEAKED 2024 USA SERVICE REPORT

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/lov1gsxj4tg?si=ze-fdc8yswirahwx.

this is a mini report on usa that includes an update on ramapo as it was delivered during the british bethel inauguration few days ago....

Earnest

NotFormer : Harbour ministry? When did this start as a JW programme?

The article The Challenge of Preaching in One of the World’s Largest Ports says that in the Netherlands it started in 1983. I know personally that it was done before then by JWs taking the initiative, but perhaps that was when a specific programme began.

26

Still Confused About The FDS

by NotFormer in

this was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.

if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.

Earnest

NotFormer : Earnest, you do not see the logical fallacy that I am pointing out?

I understood your thread was to confirm whether or not your understanding was correct. I would have replied very differently if I was attempting to support the FDS doctrine.

NotFormer : The WT two-tier system is inconsistent and didn't exist in anyone's mind until Rutherford made it out of whole cloth.

The WT two-tier system is entirely consistent with the Bible teaching that some will be kings and priests in heaven as brothers of Christ, and others will live on the earth. Understanding differs as to who these others will be, but a two-tier system is entirely in harmony with the Bible and believed by most churches except those who teach the earth will be destroyed.

26

Still Confused About The FDS

by NotFormer in

this was prompted by another thread where it was revealed that the gb were referred to as "our future kings" in a wt video.

https://www.jehovahs-witness.com/topic/4911685446402048/fun-moment.

if i've got it right, the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the fds.

Earnest

NotFormer : the 144,000 are (or were until recently) the FDS.

As discussed previously, the 144,000 are in heaven. Those who are anointed on earth are referred to as the remant, the remaining ones. These remaining ones were (until 2012) understood to collectively be the FDS.

NotFormer : [The remnant] are Jesus ' brothers?

Correct. Matthew 25:31-46 makes a distinction between Jesus' brothers and sheep-like ones who support them. See, for example, the article Loyally Supporting Christ's Brothers.

NotFormer : [Every JW] who is not the [remnant] are the "other sheep".

Correct.

NotFormer: [The "other sheep"] are not Jesus’ brothers.

Correct, in the sense of Matthew 25:31-46.

NotFormer : Yet the GB, who are Jesus' brothers, refer to [the "other sheep"] as brothers and sisters. But how can that be?

Technically the "other sheep" are not brothers and sisters of Christ in the sense of Matthew 25, but they are still addressed as brothers and sisters as they share the same faith. I suppose the language is borrowed from Paul's letters without being pedantic that when Paul wrote he was writing to the brothers of Christ.

NotFormer: The [remnant] are from Jesus' family, but the [other sheep] are not part of Jesus' family.

Scripture only makes a distinction between Christ’s brothers and sheep-like ones. It doesn’t go beyond that.

NotFormer : If the great crowd is not related to Jesus, then who is their father?

The "other sheep" are not Jesus' brothers but God is the father of all.

NotFormer : If the GB are "our future kings", then shouldn't the other sheep...be referred to by the GB as "our future slaves"?

We are all slaves of Christ, are we not.

NotFormer : What now is the status of the [remnant]; do they matter? Are they the GB's brothers and sisters?

All members of the Governing Body claim to be spirit-anointed and are thus part of the remnant. So, yes, according to scripture support given to Christ's brothers on earth (i.e. the remnant) does matter. But I see your point that Matthew 25:31-46 was more pertinent when the entire remnant was understood to be the FDS.