Posts by Carl

6

Who was manifested in the flesh in this verse?

by bite me in

1timothy 3:16. the nwt says "indeed the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great.

he was made manifest in the flesh..." .

my belief is jesus, but i know the wts teaches this to be false.. .

Carl_Hernz

I totally agree. That is why I stated it is technically correct to render this as "he" when translating; current scholarship agree swith us on this.

I don't always state what I personally believe or agree with in a post like I just made. I generally try to give a statement based on the best research I have done on a subject to date. Often the research leads me to different personal views that I do not share. I try to be respectful of those who don't hold the same convictions I do by writing like this. So don't expect my writing to necessarily reflect my personal views.

Again, I agree totally with the rendering of "he," as do most modern translations. The oldest extant manuscripts and the latest in critical scholarship holds, however, that the hymn begins with "who." That is the conclusion of their work, not mine. In the midst of this, critical scholarship also agrees, however, that it is perfectly fine to render the "who" as "he."

Regardless of this, as an apologist I can only say that an expert opinion does not make something true. Neither does quoting one end an argument, nor can it be used to declare a successfully executed axiom according to the rules of apology. The latest critical scholarship is thus subject to evaluation as any other opinion. What is certain is that the Watchtower is not honest that such rules applies either to itself or its doctrine. While they may like to compare their work to that of an apologist, they do not allow the application of the scientific method to their reasoning as did the ancient church or modern textual scholars. Any organization that demonizes those who try to test their beliefs are subject to suspicion, at the least. That last statement is my opinion.

6

Who was manifested in the flesh in this verse?

by bite me in

1timothy 3:16. the nwt says "indeed the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great.

he was made manifest in the flesh..." .

my belief is jesus, but i know the wts teaches this to be false.. .

Carl_Hernz

Minor correction: The “he” is not in the manuscripts at all, only the “who” or “which,”
both neutral like the word “mystery.” I should have written in paragraph 2, “So, on the
basis of context, technically you can translate it with “he,” but the word “which” may
have been inserted in these manuscripts…” etc.

In paragraph 5, I should have written: “The use of ‘he’ would support this view in
translation, suggesting a possible reason for change in Western copies, but never occurred.”

I got a little too quick on the keyboard with this one. My apologies.

6

Who was manifested in the flesh in this verse?

by bite me in

1timothy 3:16. the nwt says "indeed the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great.

he was made manifest in the flesh..." .

my belief is jesus, but i know the wts teaches this to be false.. .

Carl_Hernz

Paul’s letter to Timothy is an exhortation to arm Timothy for the task of preserving sound
Christian conduct in the congregation at Ephesus. Paul writes in case he “should be delayed”
in his visit to Timothy, because the church, “the pillar and foundation of truth” is none
other than God’s. To impress this fact, Paul then appears to quote what scholars believe may
have been an early hymn or credo: “Undeniably great is the mystery of devotion,

Who was manifested in the flesh,
vindicated in the spirit,
seen by angels,
proclaimed to the Gentiles,
believed in throughout the world,
taken up in glory.”

1 Timothy 4:14-16.

The earliest readings of this text are in all reality “who.” It is predominantly only in
Western manuscripts that one finds the word “which,” and not “he” as the Watchtower states.
However, this statement by the Watchtower may have just been an error in scholarship as the
Greek word “which” harmonizes with the gender of the word for “mystery.” So technically you
can translate it with “he,” but this was likely inserted in these manuscripts so the pronoun
would match gender with the word “mystery.”

Though I have never seen this data that the Watchtower claims regarding scribal errors of the
insertion of the word “God,” it is well known that from the eight/ninth century onward,
manuscripts (predominantly Byzantine) have the word “God” here, not as a mistake, but likely
for advancement of theological doctrine.

As for who is being referred to here? Well, Paul says that the congregation or church is God’s
and for this reason Timothy should take his work seriously. Paul then makes that quote from the
hymn or credo that both he and Timothy obviously adhere to regarding this great “mystery”
(meaning “sacred truth”) of their “devotion” as worthy of preserving church teachings.

Because Christ was the one “manifested in the flesh,” etc., even as the Watchtower admits, but
the context revolves around “God,” statements like these lead to what would eventually become the
foundations of the doctrine of the Incarnation. The use of “which” in the masculine would support
this view, suggesting a possible reason for this change in Western copies. After development of
the doctrine into the Trinity, this could explain why the later Byzantine texts read “God,”
and why the insertion is not a mistake but likely purposeful.

Totally avoiding supporting or disagreeing with the Trinity doctrine, I am but giving a mere
history of the textual development and its relation to how it has come to be viewed today.
While scholastically speaking, and as taught by Trinitarians, the Trinity doctrine is not directly
derivative from Scripture, the reason why it became an issue in the first place is quite visible
from certain statements that seem to mention Christ and God as one, as many believe is happening
in this text.

At best, in trying to remain totally neutral, one would have to say the text reads with some
obscurity to it. However, the Watchtower is never safe with obscure sections of Scripture
or letting the reader make up his mind (especially not at the cost of their anti-trinity stance),
therefore their explanation of it as cited by Narkissos. But their exegesis isn’t scholastically
acceptable due to the fact that there is no indication in Paul’s statement that he has stopped
talking about owing devotion to God and is now talking about owing devotion to another person.

12

No Attempt to Rebuild Burned Bridges by JWs' "New Light"?

by Carl_Hernz in

the last three quarters of my time as a witness (just a short 11 years compared to others) was torturous because after i had read the bible over and over and over again, i was convinced that the only hope held out to me could be the heavenly hope.

when discussing this with an elder who claimed to be of the anointed, he stated that such feelings should just be ignored.

after getting word of it, another elder came over to my home and yelled at me for over an hour on how i could have the audacity to even consider something like this.

Carl_Hernz

Great point, Mary. The WWCG is a prime example of a religion like the Witnesses--they had their own magazine, The Plain Truth, and they also taught that the world was to end in 1975...they are struggling now, but you have to give it to them for standing up for what is right.

12

No Attempt to Rebuild Burned Bridges by JWs' "New Light"?

by Carl_Hernz in

the last three quarters of my time as a witness (just a short 11 years compared to others) was torturous because after i had read the bible over and over and over again, i was convinced that the only hope held out to me could be the heavenly hope.

when discussing this with an elder who claimed to be of the anointed, he stated that such feelings should just be ignored.

after getting word of it, another elder came over to my home and yelled at me for over an hour on how i could have the audacity to even consider something like this.

Carl_Hernz

That's right...I almost forgot about that, how truth is always irrelevantly second the loyalty to the FDS!

Though this wasn't the reason I left the "highly illuminated" halls of the Watchtower, I wonder how many have? I also wonder if any of my old "enemies" who were so against me in the past now feel with this latest take on the heavenly calling. Funny thing, all the elders (and there were several) who opposed me above and beyond the call of duty (and some of their actions were most horrible), none of them were still serving as elder by the time I left. They had either been removed for some reason or were forced to step down to avoid the embarassment of being removed, even the "anointed" elder.

12

No Attempt to Rebuild Burned Bridges by JWs' "New Light"?

by Carl_Hernz in

the last three quarters of my time as a witness (just a short 11 years compared to others) was torturous because after i had read the bible over and over and over again, i was convinced that the only hope held out to me could be the heavenly hope.

when discussing this with an elder who claimed to be of the anointed, he stated that such feelings should just be ignored.

after getting word of it, another elder came over to my home and yelled at me for over an hour on how i could have the audacity to even consider something like this.

Carl_Hernz

The last three quarters of my time as a Witness (just a short 11 years compared to others) was torturous because after I had read the Bible over and over and over again, I was convinced that the only hope held out to me could be the heavenly hope. When discussing this with an elder who claimed to be of the anointed, he stated that such feelings ‘should just be ignored.’ After getting word of it, another elder came over to my home and yelled at me for over an hour on how I could have the audacity to even consider something like this. “Why wouldn’t Jehovah choose me over you? I’ve been in the truth longer than you and I’m an elder and you are not!”

I was 29 when I left the Witnesses. I understand now today why I felt the heavenly hope was the only logical choice for me—the majority of Christians have been feeling that way for centuries from their own reading of the Scriptures—but with the “new light” that has come from the Watchtower, this has left me thinking.

We recently had a discussion on Catholicism versus Jehovah’s Witnesses, and yesterday I saw a television program on the history of Halloween where Joan of Arc was brought up. Joan of Arc is now the patron saint of France. Those clerics who burned her to a stake as a witch surely goofed (it was criminal actually). There is also the incident of Galileo, and how John Paul II confessed that his religion had been wrong in how it treated him.

While the Watchtower may make once in a while make reference to some of its actions as being “regrettable,” with all this “new light” that is constantly coming out, why does the Watchtower never try to make up for all the “Joan of Arcs” they “burned at the stake”? I know of many cases where people thought the “generation” doctrine would not be fulfilled before the 20 th century was over, and they were labeled apostates. Others, like myself, felt they truly had a heavenly calling, and they were mistreated, “marked” as troublemakers, just out for attention, or worse psychologically disturbed.

Okay, let’s just say for a moment that the “new light” scenario is true-- the Witnesses belie the claim of such a phenomenon as happening to them because they never go back to try to repair what they’ve ruined. Bridges are often burned in their track and are left smoldering, and the Organization doesn’t even attempt to look over its shoulder to acknowledge them. If this “new light” is from a benevolent God, why aren’t the Witnesses’ “Joan of Arcs” being “sainted,” so to speak? Where are the public apologies to the “Galileos”?

It may be “new light” to them, but it seems to be worse than an “easy out” for the Watchtower. I’m trying to put my finger on it but don’t know exactly what it is that I am seeing in all of this. Outside of calling it “evil,” there is something else there too…maybe I’m mistaken but the lack of concern for the victims of their “new light” is, for lack of a better word, disgraceful earmark of theirs. Any comments and insight from your fine folks out there?

39

Is there a God? The musings of madman as he walks through the woods

by dawg in

jw
friends

bear with me, i promice you'll be happy you read this, .

here at uga, i studied in the micro-biology department for the first three years of college-organic chem 3 pretty much ended my career.

i think evolution is pretty sound sans the fact that they haven't answered the question of how life began.

Carl_Hernz

Actaully, Dawg, everything about the Christian God is set on its side that throws logic out and makes it difficult to comprehend the whys and whats?

Not to add fire to your perplexity, but does it make sense that the Savior that God sends to the world is born to a poor family of a hated race in an obscure country, stays poor all his life, never marries, gets horribly tortured and eventually executed as a common criminal? On top of that, this Savior demands that his followers follow in his footsteps.

So where is the logic in that? The answer is there isn’t any. According to Christian theology there isn’t supposed to be, not on the surface anyway. And no, the answer doesn’t lie with “the talking snake” story either.

The Septuagint used by the first century Christians contained a book called The Wisdom of Solomon (considered inspired by some churches but not JWs). In it the writer described a man who lived a blameless life and was loved by God but died suddenly in the prime of his life. “The people saw this and did not understand it,” the writer explained, since the now dead man was well-known for living a saintly life.

The narrative continues by stating that something unseen to others was going on with this man, something the people around him never considered. “He was made perfect in his few short years, as though he had lived a long life,” or in other words he had reach a state of exemplary virtue. “He was taken away [in death] so evil could not undermine his judgment nor deceit seduce his soul…Since his soul please the Lord, the Lord quickly took him from the wickedness around him.”

This is a simplistic means employed by the writer to give not an all-encompassing answer to explain why every innocent suffers and dies despite prayers to the contrary, but to offer a comprehensive explanation that humans don’t have all the facts regarding the way history unfolds. What may look bad on the surface, like death in one’s prime, may in truth be something beneficial to the individuals involved. The writer of Wisdom concludes by saying that this early death, unknown to those puzzled by what they saw, was in God’s wisdom “grace and mercy” for this individual.—Widsom 4:7-15.

It isn’t weakness or a lack of faith on your part to question God’s providential hand in things when you witness undue suffering. It is often brought on by emotion moved by our strong inert sense of justice. We don’t have all the answers to see the other side of the coin, and so we are left disturbed. Naturally we might question what God is doing like Abraham did when God said he was planning to bring destruction upon Sodom and Gomorrah.

Coming to the end of my long-winded pontificating, what I am saying is you are alright and responding to things as you should. It is part of the growth in learning something about yourself and God. Through things like this we recognize our limitations and our need to lean on the wisdom of our Creator. We also learn to trust in him and his providence. Trust is not a scholastic exercise, it is of the heart. That is why the story of a dead Messiah hanging on a tree defies logic. It is really a story of life, not death. But we discern that not because it is logical, but because it is a story of love, something meant to be understood with the heart and no so much with the mind.

33

Difference Between Catholics and Witnesses

by WTWizard in

i have recently seen one thread about the differences between the witnesses and those other religions.

so i will explain some of my earlier experiences as a catholic and contrast them to the witness experience.. my family was active as a catholic when i was about 6 or so.

we had to salute the flag, and we got to play with other children and go on class trips that also made major markers in life.

Carl_Hernz

Our most precious asset, especially for those of us who have left the Watchtower organization, is one another. While I believe it to be a good thing that we become settled in the philosophy or ideology of our choosing once we leave the Witnesses behind, and having a strong conviction in what we feel is good too, I am saddened and hurt by the occasional dogmatic condemnation of another faith by some.

Whether the person is atheist, religious, or does not choose any type of label for themselves, if we have learned anything from our experience with the Witnesses, shouldn’t it be that all people are precious, have something to contribute to us and society, and if anything deserve the highest respect?

As I’m fond of saying, the world is what we make of it. And while I think it good to always compare religious beliefs or ideologies in discussion (for you know we weren’t free to do so as Witnesses), we should always with humility admit that we often measure others by our limited exposure to data. I have been spending years of my life dedicated to professionally writing about religion and its effects on human history, and even I have to realize that my conclusions are always limited because there is always more data out there and never enough time to gather it all.

While I admire Justhuman’s remarks and views, I have come to see a pattern not just on this board but in society in general that confuses me. Not to stand to make defense for the Catholic Church as the only religion by which to get saved (again, since the Witnesses I have passed that point regarding religions), but for the sake of accuracy and people’s desire for it.

For example, Justhuman, Catholics do not believe in a literal fiery hell; they view hell as eternal existence without God (some Catholic theologians view it as equal to saying the person is non-existent). The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory was not “inserted” by the Roman Church, but rather adopted from Judaism. They also don’t believe that the pope is infallible; instead they teach that a pope, by virtue of his office, can define doctrine in such a way that the teaching proves to be infallible (something that Catholics believe may have occurred in their history only four or five times looking back over some 2000 years).

This is not to attack the beliefs of Justhuman (I have great respect for anyone who has the status of Master Member on this board), just to use them as example of what I’ve noticed just in this discussion. Many of the declarations of the Catholic Church are inaccurate and sound like JWs on anti-Catholic rhetoric instead of reliable information.

Instead of offering lots of citations, I want to just say that if people want to know what an apple tastes like, they don’t go to an orange tree to sample it’s fruit. Neither do people go to a fig tree as if it can give people an accurate understanding of what apples taste like. You have to gather from the source to get the real story on an apple’s taste. The same thing applies to any religion or ideology, Christian, non-Christian, hated or otherwise. If you wanted to know the truth about how an atheist thinks, would you ask a Jehovah’s Witness? Can you learn the truth about Buddhism from Baptists? We would consider that foolish. I don’t expect anyone here to take my word on what I’ve pointed out regarding Catholic teachings (I do have to admit to being surprised however that people still got things so wrong as I consider others to be more in the know that I am), what I hope is that people will make the effort to go to the source themselves.

I understand that we live in a nation still used to its Puritan roots of distrusting Catholicism, a place where anti-Catholic rhetoric is fine to repeat and make the butt of jokes and even insults. But would anybody stand for it if we were spreading anti-Semitic statements in the same way? Why even saying things disparaging regarding homosexuals is more than frowned upon! But it seems okay to show an anti-Catholic spirit, and this without most of us having our facts straight. Before we use the same techniques and rules of judging that the Watchtower often employs in viewing another religious system, perhaps we should make sure it is even ethically correct to do so.

33

Difference Between Catholics and Witnesses

by WTWizard in

i have recently seen one thread about the differences between the witnesses and those other religions.

so i will explain some of my earlier experiences as a catholic and contrast them to the witness experience.. my family was active as a catholic when i was about 6 or so.

we had to salute the flag, and we got to play with other children and go on class trips that also made major markers in life.

Carl_Hernz

AH, then that makes sense. Yeah, from an atheist point of view I can see you point.

33

Difference Between Catholics and Witnesses

by WTWizard in

i have recently seen one thread about the differences between the witnesses and those other religions.

so i will explain some of my earlier experiences as a catholic and contrast them to the witness experience.. my family was active as a catholic when i was about 6 or so.

we had to salute the flag, and we got to play with other children and go on class trips that also made major markers in life.

Carl_Hernz

Oh, one other thing...the Witnesses do indeed place much in a scholastic approach to religion that is admirable. Most people should study up on their faith. Catholicism places more emphasis on the mystical--experiencing God through prayer, life, and worship--and this experience may seem illogical, at least from a scientific standpoint, when compared with are more studious approach.

Carl_Hernz

Posts by Carl_Hernz