Posts by Earnest

90

What is Your Favorite WT Lie?

by Sea Breeze in

i would like to start a thread on lies that the watchtower and their reps have told.

surely we all have one or two that truly sticks out in our memories, no matter how much we would like to forget.

my favorite wt lie: the reason they don't want to release the name of the "scholars" who worked on the new world translation is because they do not want to accept "glory and honor" from others.

Earnest

Sea Breeze : I remember being train to say this in the 60's: "We are not a church. We're Jehovah's Witnesses".

I remember that, but I remember it as Jehovah's witnesses, as part of the succession of witnesses in Hebrews 11.

30

Is it just me, or is Watchtower lowering its standards?

by ukpimo in

in the past, we used to hear talks on:.

avoiding sexual immorality and porn, as well as masturbation and other sexual practices.

why evolution cannot possibly be true.

Earnest

Shepherd the Flock of God, April 2024, Chapter 14 ("Child Abuse") Section 24

One who has engaged in child sexual abuse does not qualify to receive any privileges in the congregation for many years, if ever; this includes minor privileges. ... If the body of elders believes that one who has engaged in child sexual abuse decades ago may now qualify for minor privileges, such as working with audio/video support (which includes working with the stage and passing microphones), serving as an attendant, or assisting with accounts, literature, or territories, they should assign two elders to call the Service Department.The assigned elders should call the Service Department before any congregation privileges are extended.

30

Is it just me, or is Watchtower lowering its standards?

by ukpimo in

in the past, we used to hear talks on:.

avoiding sexual immorality and porn, as well as masturbation and other sexual practices.

why evolution cannot possibly be true.

Earnest

Vidiot : I can’t find any info about this case.

RKJW1 DOE, respondent, v. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETYOF NEW YORK, INC.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : while some Gnostic writings, such as the Tripartite Tractate, also addressed heresies, this comparison is flawed. Gnosticism represents an entirely separate theological framework, often fundamentally incompatible with the beliefs of mainstream Christianity.

The Tripartite Tractate was certainly a second- or third-century Christian treatise. Elaine Pagels writes in The Gnostic Gospels :

What distressed Irenaeus most was that the majority of Christians did not recognize the followers of Valentinus as heretics. Most could not tell the difference between Valentinian and orthodox teaching; after all, he says, most people cannot differentiate between cut glass and emeralds either! But, he declares, "although their language is similar to ours," their views "not only are very different, but at all points full of blasphemies."

aqwsed12345 : Furthermore, many Gnostic texts were preserved precisely because they were not systematically suppressed in the way you suggest—several were hidden or preserved by their own communities, not burned by the orthodox Church.

They may have been hidden or preserved by their own communities, as at Nag Hammadi, but those who described them as heretics certainly encouraged the destruction of their texts. Due to this, most evidence for the Valentinian system comes from its critics and detractors, most notably Irenaeus, since he was especially concerned with refuting Valentinianism. Obviously an unbiased source.

The point is that what you call orthodox in the second and early third century was nothing of the sort. Each group considered themselves to be "orthodox", or "true Christians". At a stretch you may be able to describe them as proto-orthodox but that is only in hindsight.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

Earnest

Sea Breeze : Early Christian leaders wrote thousands of pages in letters to one another combatting heretics.

Did you know it was not only "orthodox" christians that wrote about heretics. There were Gnostic heresiologies of which we have some record from Nag Hammadi, such as the Tripartate Tractate and the Testimony of Truth. No doubt Arius and others also described those they believed were distorting scripture as heretics, but unfortunately everything they wrote was burned. So, in this period, Christians of a variety of persuasions made use of the notion of heresy and used it to discredit their opponents in hopes of staking out a secure, enforced and recognised claim to orthodoxy. The fact that the works of Justin, Irenaeus, Hegesippus et. al. survived reflects more on whether or not they could be accommodated with the Athanasian faction at Nicaea than any scriptural truths.

90

What is Your Favorite WT Lie?

by Sea Breeze in

i would like to start a thread on lies that the watchtower and their reps have told.

surely we all have one or two that truly sticks out in our memories, no matter how much we would like to forget.

my favorite wt lie: the reason they don't want to release the name of the "scholars" who worked on the new world translation is because they do not want to accept "glory and honor" from others.

Earnest

Vanderhoven7 : It’s not clear why the writers of the 1993 Watchtower lied, but there is it in black and white.

Didn't ya know. Nothing before 1919 counts.

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

Earnest

aqwsed12345 : Constantine's role was that of a mediator and facilitator, not a theological arbiter.
aqwsed12345 : Claims of political imposition or suppression of manuscripts are unfounded conspiracy theories that do not align with historical evidence.

Constantine's Edict Against the Arians :

In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be death. As soon as he is discovered in this offence, he shall be submitted for capital punishment. ..

28

Pre-Nicene christians and the trinity

by joey jojo in

this is just a quick summary that might be useful regarding the threads about the trinity currently on the board.. in 325 ce, the nicene council was called by constantine to settle schisms within the christian church.

the argument about the nature of jesus in relation to god was one of the big problems that needed resolution.

at first, constantine told the 2 main players, alexander and arius to sort it out between themselves, as he, constantine didnt see it as overly important.

Earnest

Anony Mous : Where do you find that the teaching was wide spread and accepted?

Wikipedia reports on this :

Controversy over Arianism arose in the late 3rd century and persisted throughout most of the 4th century. It involved most church members—from simple believers, priests, and monks to bishops, emperors, and members of Rome's imperial family. The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians, as was the first King of Italy, Odoacer (433?–493). The Lombards were also Arians or Semi-Arians until the 7th century, the ruling elite of Visigothic Spain was Arian until 589, many Goths adopted Arian beliefs upon their conversion to Christianity, the Vandals actively spread Arianism in North Africa, the antipopes Felix II and Ursinus were Arian, and Pope Liberius was forced to sign the Arian Creed of Sirmium of 357 although the letter says he willingly agreed with Arianism. Such a deep controversy within the early Church during this period of its development could not have materialized without significant historical influences providing a basis for the Arian doctrines.

Jerome wrote The Dialogue Against the Luciferians about 379 and there he said (chapter 19):

[Bishop] Valens and [Bishop] Ursacius and others associated with them [i.e. Arians] in their wickedness, eminent Christian bishops of course, began to wave their palms, and to say they had not denied that He was a creature, but that He was like other creatures. At that moment the term Usia was abolished: the Nicene Faith stood condemned by acclamation. The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian.

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

aqwsed12345 : Therefore, while the Greek word ektise can mean “create,” the underlying Hebrew context allows for a broader range of meanings, including “possess.”

The Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek so they would be available to Jews who could not understand Hebrew, which by this time was only a liturgical language. Greek was the language used by the NT writers and it is clear from the scriptures I listed that they understood and used ektisen and ktiseos as created and creation respectively.

I suggest that just as John, as a believing Jew, could not write "in the beginning" (John 1:1) without having Genesis 1:1 in mind, so the writer of Revelation could not write "the beginning of the creation by God" without having Proverbs 8:22 in mind. This is no "surface-level similarity". The people of that age memorised huge chunks of scripture as the written word was not as available as it is today. Their audience would always include Jews and so they would allude to OT passages, especially in connection with Christ, to show there was a continuity of faith.

When a Jew read John 1:1 they would immediately think of Genesis 1:1. When they read Revelation 3:14 they would immediately think of Proverbs 8:22. It doesn't matter how Athanasius and the post-Nicene fathers interpreted it. What matters is how the writer of Revelation and his immediate audience understood it, and the evidence is quite clear about that.

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

Nathan Natas : How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Interesting question, especially if angels are not in material form. This is discussed in Notes & Queries, Volume 63, Issue 1, where the writer suggests the query about how many angels might sit on a needle's point was first raised in the 16th century as a critique of medieval angelology because it makes a pun on ‘needless point’. He writes (p.385) :

… they fell to Disputations about the time of their Creation; whether it were before, or with the visible World; whether on the first day, or when they were created. Touching their Orders, what, and how many they were, their number, whether more fell or stood: whether they did occupie a place; and so, whether many might be in one place at one time; and how many might sit on a Needles point; and six hundred such like needlesse points.

I do believe I have seen some of those needlesse points discussed on this very thread.

But while many of these points are needless and mere speculation, the substance of the thread which relates to Jesus Christ being "the beginning of the creation (ktiseōs) by God" is relevant because it impinges on the shema : (Deuteronomy 6:4) "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah".

This expression "the beginning of the creation by God" (he arche tes ktiseos tou theou) echoes Proverbs 8:22 (LXX) "Lord [referring to Jehovah] created me the beginning of his ways" (kurios ektise me archen hodon autou), and so the meaning of this verse in Proverbs reflects on the meaning of the verse in Revelation.

There has been ample discussion whether ektise means created/made or possessed but I would suggest the most sensible course is to see how it is used elsewhere in the Bible. These are the places they occur in scripture, apart from Proverbs 8 and Revelation 3.

Mark 10:6 from [the] beginning of creation (arkhes ktiseos) ‘He made them male and female’.

Mark 13:19 a tribulation such as has not occurred from [the] beginning of the creation which God created (arkhes ktiseon hen ektisen ho theos)

Romans 1:20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world’s creation (ktiseos kosmou) onward

Romans 8:19 For the eager expectation of the creation (tes ktiseos) …

Colossians 1:15 He is … the firstborn of all creation (prototokos pases ktiseos)

1 Timothy 4:3 … commanding to abstain from foods which God created (ho theos ektisen)

Hebrews 9:11 when Christ came as a high priest … through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation (ou tautes tes ktiseos)

2 Peter 3:4 … all things are continuing exactly as from creation’s beginning (ap arkhes ktiseos)

Revelation 10:6 and by the One … who created (hos ektisen) the heaven and the … earth and the … sea

There seems to be a common theme.

It is true that the Hebrew word used in Proverbs 8:22 (qanani from qanah) conveys the idea that God acquires or possesses creation by virtue of his creative power (Genesis 14:19,22). So “formed me” (NLT), “possessed me” (ESV), “created me” (BSB), “made me” (ISV) are all acceptable translations of Proverbs 8. But we need to ask out of all these nuances of the word qanah, why did the Greek translators of Proverbs choose ektise which clearly means create if we are to accept how the Bible uses it. We simply don’t know. But it was this Greek translation which was read and used by the writers of the NT as can be seen by the allusion in Revelation 3:14. We also know this because the quotations of Proverbs 8 by various writers in the first four centuries almost always use this translation. See Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian , Origen, Methodius, Dionysius , Augustine, Eusebius , Socrates, Theodoret, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, John of Damascus , Ambrose.

Certainly, some of these believed the trinity and argued for it at Nicaea and elsewhere. That is not my point. My point is that every one of these church fathers, both ante and post-Nicaea, accepted that Proverbs read that Wisdom was created AND they accepted this referred to Christ. Some of them also argued, as you have done, that it didn’t really mean that God created Christ or they said it only applied to his human existence. All of that is interpretation. And you are as entitled to your interpretation as much as anyone else. We come back to dancing on pins. But the clear statement of (LXX) scripture is that Wisdom was created, and so this reflects on the meaning of Revelation 3:14 as well. No wonder some good scribe (of Sinaiticus) wanted to remove it.