SheEatsDragons, I notice you joined the forum an hour ago and have already posted three times. You don't happen to be a poster that was recently deleted by any chance, do you? Especially reposting Take the Money and Run!!
Earnest
JoinedPosts by Earnest
-
6
JW girl trafficked?
by neat blue dog inanybody heard of this?
a lot on social media are saying she was jw.. https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213113850013380&id=1007975796&set=p.10213113850013380.
http://leftmeltdowns.blogspot.com/2018/11/missing-teen-linda-marie-sex-trafficking.html?m=1.
-
-
Earnest
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
aqwsed12345 : As you rightly noted, Justin says that Christ is "not the God above whom there is no other god" (Dialogue with Trypho 56), but this does not imply subordination in essence.
This is what Justin writes :
I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures, [of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject [hupo] to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things— above whom there is no other God [huper hon allos theos ouk esti] — wishes to announce to them.
To be clear, hupo means "under" and when used of a person it expresses subjection or dependence. The similar word, huper (used in "above [huper] whom there is no other god"), means "over" and in this context it expresses superiority.
So Justin says that there is a god and lord subject to the Maker of all things (who is not subject to any other god). To say that this does not imply subordination is to ignore the meaning of plain Greek.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
LV101 : Was the non-trinity belief handed down to JWs (Russell) via 2nd Day Adventism/England?
One of the most thorough publications on the early history of JWs, A Separate Identity, Volume 2, by Schulz and Vienne (who was the original poster known as Vienne and the mother of Annie, the current incumbent) says (p.xiv) :
[Russell's] rejection of the Trinity connects directly to the Colonial Era and early Republic Era belief of non-Trinitarian Congregational churches in New England and anti-Trinitarian agitation among British clergy...
Samuel Clarke's Boyle lecture on the Trinity found a place in American libraries; Priestley's multivolume work on the Trinity was circulated in America ... In America, in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, many of those influenced by it rejected Trinitarian doctrine, some becoming Socinian and others adopted Sebalianism [sic] or Arianism. New Light rejection of Trinitarianism was still an issue in the 1820s, and the issue persisted into the 1840s. Grew and Storrs both rejected the Trinity. We cannot suggest that Russell derived his Subordination doctrine (a non-Trinitarian belief system similar to Arianism) from Adventism. When some Adventists entered the discussion, they did so as part of a larger trend.
The Proclaimers book (p.44) also lists truth lovers throughout the centuries, such as Thomas Emlyn (1663-c.1741), who
accepted the Bible as God's Word and rejected the Trinity. Henry Grew (1781-1862) and George Storrs (1796-1879) not only accepted the Bible and rejected the Trinity but also expressed appreciation for the ransom sacrifice of Christ.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
peacefulpete : Justin never mentions the Gospel John or for that matter any Gospel. (apart from an interpolation). He, like the writer of John, draws from a deep tradition of second power theology.
He doesn't mention the Gospel of John. I thought he did as I read an article some time ago on Christians According to Second Century Philosophers, but I see I was wrong.
Having looked into it a bit further, I suggest it is probable he knew of the gospel because, firstly, Justin lived in Ephesus during his Dialogue with Trypho which was traditionally John's former residence. Further, Justin was the teacher and mentor of Tatian, who produced a harmony of the four gospels known as the Diatessaron. But, primarily, his Logos Christology and his reference to monogenes (only-begotten), "he was monogenes to the Father of all things ... as we have learned from the memoirs". (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 105) suggests he had access to the Prologue of John, which probably existed independently amongst Christians before the gospel gained widespread acceptance.
But even if he did not, my point remains that Justin had no problem with the concept of "another god", "a second god", who was not the God "above whom there is no other god".
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
peacefulpete : If you read a little further, he makes clear he understands that Angel is the "God of Abraham" but not the Maker/Father of all things (aka the Most High)
Yes. My primary reason for quoting Justin was to show that when he read John 1:1, he understood that "the Word was god" referred to "another god" subject to ton theon, the Maker of all things.
Quite clearly, when Justin was writing (second century), they had not yet received the clarification that we do not take the type-antitype approach except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so. So they saw Jesus wherever God intervened in some way. They thought he was one of the three "men" that visited Abraham at Mamre shortly before the destruction of Sodom, the angel who wrestled with Jacob, the voice from the burning bush which spoke to Moses, "the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night" which led the Israelites through the wilderness, the fourth man in the burning fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego and so on. As you note he was prefigured by Joshua (Greek/Latin : Jesus) and was even the very name of God.
Justin clearly understands this. He says (chapter 59) :
Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same one, who is also an angel (kai angelos), and a god (kai theos), and a lord (kai kurios), and a man (kai aner) and a human (kai anthropos), and who appeared to Abraham and Isaac, appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses.
But he always made clear, as you note, that he was not the God "above whom there is no other god".
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
@ peacefulpete
ho ho
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
aqwsed12345 : While the uncial manuscripts do indeed capitalize all instances of the word "god" (ΘΕΟΣ) or "lord" (ΚΥΡΙΟΣ) due to the nature of their script, context and meaning determine how the word should be understood and translated in modern languages.
aqwsed12345 : Thus the use of nomina sacra in early Christian manuscripts reflects reverence for divine names, but it does not imply that every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations.
I am pleased to see you agree on this. My point regarding nomina sacra was specifically that they do not imply every use of the term "god" should be capitalized in modern translations. And that applies to John 1:1 as much as any other scripture. Context and meaning should determine how the word is translated in modern languages.
aqwsed12345 : The traditional translation ("the Word was God") does not confuse the Word with the [God] ... The Greek construction makes this clear...
You have to be joking. Certainly the Greek construction makes the distinction clear, but we are talking about the English translation. You refuse to address the fact that most English readers do confuse the Word with the God. This is well known to all JWs who get to discuss the trinity from door to door. The first scripture the person will point to, and usually the only scripture, is John 1:1 and will say that proves that Jesus is God. In fact, you say the same thing (to peacefulpete) : "the New Testament's portrayal of the Logos (John 1:1) presents the Logos as not only preexistent but as God Himself". And then you don't think people confuse the Word with ton theon (God Himself).
aqwsed12345 : The claim that John's audience, particularly the Jews of the time, were henotheists is historically inaccurate.
Of course it is accurate. Archaeological finds in the form of oil lamps, coins and mosaics show there were other gods alongside the Jewish god, although most Jews did not worship them. Amazingly, there is a synagogue built in the first half of the third century, in Tiberias, which include the zodiac and sun god. The Dura-Europos synagogue which also dates to the third century includes a number of Greek gods as well as biblical scenes.
To refer to a second god would not be strange to John's audience. In Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, she argues that prior to the rabbinic Judaism that emerged after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the Jewish concept of God was not as monolithic as is understood today. Many in first century Palestine retained a world view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel, in which there was a High God and several Sons of God.
In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho first asks "show us that the spirit of prophecy admits another god besides the Maker of all things", and Justin answers "there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things (above whom there is no other god) wishes to announce to them.". Whatever you may argue about Justin, he is answering a question about another god.
The first century audience of John's prologue would have had no problem with the concept that the Word was with God and also had his qualities, who was by nature a god. Indeed, this has always been a Jewish understanding since God said "let us make man in our image", although it was often attributed to an angel (or angels).
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
aqwswed12345 : You argue that the use of nomina sacra for both "God" and "the god of this world" implies that no special reverence or distinction was intended for these terms in the original manuscripts.
On the contrary, my argument was that the use of nomina sacra for the word "god" does not justify capitalising it in English, unless we are consistent and capitalise all instances where nomina sacra occur. As you know, in the uncial Greek there is no distinction whether it refers to true or false gods, they are all capitalised.
aqwsed : Grammatically, the lack of the article before theos [in John 1:1c] prevents a misunderstanding that the Word is numerically identical to the [God] (ton theon)...
It does in Greek but not in English, because the English of John 1:1 does not reflect the Greek article. You think the English should include the article, as in "the Word was with the God", but the fact is it doesn't. This is why the REV (and Francis Moloney) translate it as "what God was the Word [also] was". That avoids the misunderstanding you refer to, but it is a paraphrase. It may be what the text means but it is not what it says.
As we are discussing how JWs arrived at a clearer understanding, let's consider a number of ways the text could be translated which would reflect the Greek.
(1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(2) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and the Word was God.
(3) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was god.
(4) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with [the] God, and the Word was a god.
(1) and (2) can easily convey to the English reader that there is no distinction between the Word and God. You may read it and say of course there is a distinction, because you know the underlying Greek. But most people do not, and a translation should convey the sense of the original language without requiring people to learn it in order to understand plain English.
(3) and (4) introduce "henotheistic overtones", suggesting the existence of multiple gods, which (you suggest) is incompatible with the monotheism that undergirds John's Gospel.
For the sake of discussion, let me distinguish monotheism, polytheism and henotheism (using theopedia).
monotheism is "the belief that there is but one God. The term comes from the Greek monos "only", and theos "god". Monotheism opposes polytheism, the belief in more than one God, and atheism, the belief that there is no God.
polytheism is "belief in, or worship of, multiple gods or divinities. The word comes from the Greek words poly+theoi, literally "many gods."
henotheism is "the belief that many gods exist, yet the worship of only one of these gods is appropriate. A henotheist would admit that many gods may exist and are able to be worshipped. However the henotheist chooses to worship only one of these gods."
Now I would like to consider the REV translation of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and what God was the word was", with the footnote
"The absence of the article (“the”) before “God” in the Greek makes the word “God” qualitative, which can be understood as “the Word had the character of God,” meaning that it was godly."
So, John 1:1c answers the question "what was the word". The Word was godly. The Word was what God was. The Word was a god. Not the Word was God. That would (incorrectly) answer the question "who was the word".
The objection that "the Word was a god" introduces "henotheistic overtones" ignores John's audience, who were either henotheists or polytheists. The Jews in John's day knew about other gods. How could they not. Caesar was a god. They just didn't worship them. They were henotheists. John's prologue would have made complete sense to them. It wouldn't occur to them to ask, how could theos be with ton theon, as English readers do when faced with the traditional translation.
This translation ("the Word was a god") shows that JWs had a clearer understanding of how the divinity of the Word was understood by John's intended audience.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
aqwsed12345 : Early Christian scribes, as evidenced by their use of nomina sacra, understood this dynamic [the relationship between the Father and the Son] and reverently applied the same sacred titles to both the Father and the Son.
In my previous post I said I would give some thought to the fact that John 1:1 uses nomina sacra for both references to God. Surprisingly, there are only two papyri prior to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which contain this verse, namely P66 (late second or early third century) and P75 (third century). In fact, only P75 contains the verse in full but we can assume that both references to God were treated as nomina sacra in both papyri. However, I noted in my earlier post that these two papyri in particular were quite liberal in applying nomina sacra, applying them to both the sacred and mundane. So I wondered whether these were also applied to "god" in Acts 28:6 (where the Maltese were saying Paul was "a god") and 2 Corinthians 4:4 (where the "god of this world" blinds the minds of the unbelievers). Unfortunately, none of the early papyri contain these two verses so I checked both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. In both manuscripts nomina sacra are used for both verses, so it seems they were always used for "God" regardless of the context. So I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the fact that they are used in John 1:1. Otherwise Satan must also be in the "dynamic relationship" you describe.
So the nomina sacra do not provide any support for capitalizing "God" in English translations of John 1:1. Rather, as Francis Moloney explains (The Gospel of John,1998,p.35) :
Although the traditional translation is "and the Word was God," there is a danger that this might lead the contemporary reader of the English text to collapse the Word and God into one: they are both God. The author has gone to considerable trouble to indicate that an identification between the Word and God is to be avoided.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
Earnest
aqwsed12345 : Many scholars ... have extensively argued that the use of nomina sacra reflects the early Christian desire to show reverence for the sacred names of God and Christ.
These conclusions seem reasonable. Larry Hurtado, whom you mention, says regarding the nomina sacra, "at a point still earlier than any of the extant manuscripts, one of these four ['Jesus', 'Lord', 'Christ', or 'God'] may have been written in the special manner, from which the subsequent Christian scribal convention developed." (Lord Jesus Christ, 2005, p.626). That seems a more reasonable explanation for the evolution of this practice than to suggest that the original writers all started abbreviating these four names independently and without reference to each other, as slimboyfat points out above. Hurtado thinks it started with the name "Jesus", but it could just as easily (and in my opinion more likely) have started with replacing the tetragrammaton/Iao if the original writers followed the pattern of the first century LXX in their treatment of God's name.
My reason for stating that the original writers did not use the nomina sacra is, first of all, there is no record of nomina sacra being used in the LXX in (or before) the first century (when most scholars believe the majority of the NT was written). If we accept that nomina sacra were a Christian innovation then this is not surprising. But as they were all Jews they would have shared the Jewish view that scripture should not be altered, so especially when they were quoting from the Torah or other writings it would have been anathema to represent God's name in a way different to what they found written. It is more reasonable to suppose that when gentile scribes who did not share this view of sacred writings were tasked with copying, they took it on themselves (or were authorised by some sort of editorial board) to make these changes.
Your suggestion that the use of nomina sacra in John 1:1 for both references to God is a precedent for capitalising both in English is something I will have to give some thought to. However, as we have agreed that the second reference ("the Word was God") is qualitative, my inclination is that capitalising "God" blurs the meaning with that of the first reference ("the Word was with God") for English readers.