Posts by rmnnoute

8

Who first applied Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus?

by Doug Mason in

who was the first christian writer to apply isaiah 9:6 to jesus?.

i mean as a direct quotation, not as an allusion.. doug.

rmnnoute

None of the New Testament writers applied Isaiah 9:6 to Jesus, because, writing in Greek, they usually quoted Hebrew Scripture verses from the Greek Septuagint, and the Greek Septuagint does not have the part about 'his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Prince of Peace.'

Rather, the LXX (Septuagint) refers to the coming Messiah as the 'Angel (or, Messenger) of Great Counsel':

κα? καλε?ται τ? ?νομα α?το? μεγ?λης βουλ?ς ?γγελος

Transliterated, kai kaleitai to onoma autou megalhs boulhs aggelos.

Any early church fathers who used the LXX would have quoted it in that manner.

172

Top 10 reasons why JWs don't have the truth - please contribute

by oldlightnewshite in

i thought it would be an interesting exercise to ask everybody on here what their 'top 10 reasons why jws don't have the truth' actually were.

maybe we can see some correlating views/patterns/ideas that may help us de-programme the newbies that come on this site.

if eventually most people have an outstanding gripe/concern it'll help everybody understand the ex-jw mindset a little better.

rmnnoute

"The Coptic language uses the indefinite article differently than English, so it does not prove that the Word is in any way not God."

That suggestion is found on certain Trinitarian apologetic sites, but it is inaccurate and demonstrates only a superficial understanding of the Sahidic Coptic language.

The Sahidic Coptic language differs from English only with respect to abstract nouns (i.e, "love," "grace," etc.), not regular common nouns like the Coptic word for "god," which is ΝΟΥΤΕ .

The usage is so similar in English and Coptic grammar that Coptic scholar Thomas O. Lambdin could write: "The use of the Coptic articles, both definite and indefinite, corresponds closely to the use of the articles in English." (Introduction to Sahidic Coptic, p. 5)

Since in the Coptic of John 1:1(c), ΝΕΥΝΟΥΤΕ ΠΕ Π?Α?Ε , we have a regular common noun construction, not an abstract noun construction, the objection of a difference in usage is irrelevant and misleading in this specific case.

Coptic grammar allows only two possible English translations Of Coptic John 1:1(c) according to Coptic grammarian Shisha HaLevy: (1) adjectival, or (2) indefinite. The definite translation, "the Word was God," cannot be obtained from the Coptic sentence.

Thus, the Coptic sentence can be rendered as "the Word was a god," as grammarian Bentley Layton does in the interlinear translation found on page 7 of his 2007 grammar book, Coptic in 20 Lessons, or as "the Word was divine/a divine being."

http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/2010/03/nominal-sentence-predicates-and-coptic.html

Of course, the underlying Greek text can also be translated to say "the Word was a god," as some theologians recognize:

"Now this [NWT] translation is normally laughed out of court by mainstream Christian commentators. And they are right to point out that “god” does not need to take a definite article if it is the predicate nominative. However, “and the Word was a god” is a perfectly legitimate translation of the Greek here."

http://thomstark.net/?p=1091

Or, the Greek can be translated to say "the Word was divine," as in Moffatt, An American Translation, and others.

Whether considering either the Greek or the Coptic text, there is no grammatical reason to keep "the Word was God" in English translations of John 1:1(c). If nothing else, the context of John 1:1, 2, where the Word is also said to be "with" God, makes such a translation of doubtful validity. If the Bible writer John meant to say that "the Word was God," there would have been no need to say twice in two verses that the Word was "with God."

15

Does God need an Organization on earth today?

by wannabe in

does god need an organization on earth today?.

the word of the lord from jerusalem.

because he is jehovah's organization on earth today, right now!

rmnnoute

God does not need anything. But none of us can say what he wants.

The Christian congregation of the first century was an organization.

The New Testament tells Christians, who have God's spirit, to also "obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you. " -- Hebrews 13:17, New International Version

"Your leaders" is, in the Greek, το?ς ?γουμ?νοις ?μ?ν, and can also be translated as: "those governing you."

There was definitely organization and structure among the early Christians, because they had a significant work to do, assigned to them by the Lord Jesus Christ.

13

The Gospel of Judas- The Hidden Story of the Betrayal of Christ

by frankiespeakin in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywjdmezcqio&feature=playlist&p=024c50cc11c38d6a&index=0.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucbxcrspkas&feature=playlist&p=7dc6b03d01d48ed4&index=0.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmhkvzv-ojo&feature=playlist&p=7dc6b03d01d48ed4&index=6.

rmnnoute

The gospel of Judas and the other Gnostic gospels may appeal to someone who rejects the canonical Jesus, but such gospels are on even shakier ground and are much less attested by manuscript evidence. Also, unless one knows something of different Gnostic theologies, the gospels of Judas and Phillip, in particular, are dense and incomprehensible, and open to all sorts of interpretations.

Even so, the gospel of Judas may not actually be the radical work that many proclaim it to be. I recommend the book The Thirteenth Apostle: What the Gsopel of Judas Really Says, by Dr. April DeConick of Rice University (Houston, Texas, USA).

97

The JEHOVAH game (a modern fetish)

by Terry in

1.we use a name to distinguish one entity from another to avoid confusion.. 2.if there is only one of something it is one of a kind.

elivis is elvis and those who pretend to be him are impersonators.

those who pretend to be jesus are false or pseudo-christs.

rmnnoute

So... Rutherford wrote the King James Bible? JEHOVAH is in there, in big letters.

Regardless of what we call our superiors, the Bible shows that God wants us to call Him by name.

That's probably why He caused it to be there nearly 7,000 times.

49

Should I believe in the Trinity?!

by TTWSYF in

hello all, i had some questions regarding the booklet 'should you believe in the trinity?

' i should mention that i'm a catholic and my brother is a jw baptised some 15-20 years ago.

since he found 'the truth' he had been quite vocal regarding the manyu, many false teachings of the catholic church.

rmnnoute

Yes, I possess and I have read for myself all the volumes in the Ante-Nicene Fathers set, and the confusion in doctrine after the 1st century is obvious. It is also plain that several of those church "fathers" were students of Greek Platonic philosophy before becoming Christians. That background may have influenced their Christian beliefs.

What is clear from my own reading is that the earliest church fathers did not believe in the Trinity as later codified at Nicea and afterwards. The word "trias" itself was not used until more than a hundred years after Jesus Christ, and the fully-developed doctrine came even later than that.

Regardless, the Trinity cannot be proved from the Bible itself, nor from the words of Jesus Christ. The Trinity is not implied in the Scriptures, and the doctrine contradicts what the Scriptures do say.

http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/11/trinity-and-pagan-influence.html

44

Charles Taze Russell: His Life and Times: The Man, the Millennium and the Message

by RR in

jw
friends

charles taze russell: his life and times: the man, the millennium and the message by fredrick zydek is the latest biography on pastor russell, and i must say i am very impressed.

i have read other historiees on the pastor russell by zydek (all unpublished manuscripts) but this one is far better than the last one authored by charles redeker aq few years ago.

zydek is a catholic.. the author is neither a bible student or a jehovah's witness.

rmnnoute

Looks like a book well worth reading. Jehovah's Witnesses continue to have an abiding interest in C. T. Russell.

http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/

30

Coptic John 1:1, Revisited

by rmnnoute in

1:1 ?

in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.

rmnnoute

Fair enough, but Johannine thought would have to be based on what his Master taught. And according to John's Gospel, his Master taught that the Father was "my God and your God." (John 20:17) And if John also wrote the book of Revelation, we find there that the resurrected Jesus in heaven continues to refer to his Father as "my God." (Revelation 3:12)

According to John, the life of Jesus comes from the Father: "I live because of the Father." (John 6:57) Origen and other church fathers made the same point. But nowhere do we read that the life of the Father comes from, or depends on, the Son. Really, if that were the case, the terms "Father" and "Son" would have no rational meaning.

As a Hebrew, a Jew, John would know that the Hebrew Scriptures call God's representatives (angels and men) "gods" because of the authority which He invests in them to speak in His name and perform His will. It would have nothing at all to do with polytheism; it was a mere acknowledgment of how God delegates His authority. (John 10:34, 35)

Jesus is "a god" rather simply, he is God's Son. He is a divine being, and unique as God's only-begotten Son. But the Bible, including the Johannine writings, make it clear that, not only is Jesus not God Almighty, but Jesus is subordinate to God Almighty.

John is saying that Jesus is the Son of God. Not that Jesus is "God the Son." It's not complicated at all.

10

Current view of Russell's writing?

by leec in

for those who don't know me, i am not knowledgeable about jw, but have been invovled with someone who is.

can someone here who knows please tell me what jws currently believe about these passages.

i'm just wondering how they rationalize the current state of jw/wt vis-a-vis the following.

rmnnoute

This is what Jehovah's Witnesses think about C. T. Russell: he was the founder of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, not the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses.

But many of Jehovah's Witnesses know his teachings quite well, and they still form the basis of Witness belief.

See:

http://pastorrussell.blogspot.com/

30

Coptic John 1:1, Revisited

by rmnnoute in

1:1 ?

in the beginning existed the word, and the word existed with god, and the word was a god.. --- dr. lance jenott, princeton university.

http://depts.washington.edu/cartah/text_archive/coptic/coptjohn.shtml.

rmnnoute

Agreed. The Coptic text should not be accepted without research and examination. But it appears that Coptic John 1:1 agrees with what is known about the Greek text of that same verse.

For example, instead of the common translation "the Word was God" at John 1:1c, the Coptic has "the Word was a God" (Lance Jenott) or the Word was "a-god." (Bentley Layton, Coptic in 20 Lessons, 2007). Alternatively, the Coptic could support "the Word was divine." But the Coptic does not support a translation like "the Word was God."

According to Greek scholar William Barclay, neither does the Greek text support the reading, "the Word was God." Barclay writes: "When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun....John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God." -- Many Witnesses, One Lord, pp. 23, 24

Other Greek scholars also prefer a "qualitative" reading for John 1:1c, rather than the definite reading that is found in the King James and similar versions. The Coptic reading is well within the "qualitative" range.