Posts by rmnnoute

60

I know very few JW window washers and cleaners

by MC RubberMallet in

maybe these occupations are quoted to make a point, but it loses meaning when maybe 1% of brothers i know actually has these as jobs..

rmnnoute

What does it matter? There is dignity in all honest work.

And there was never a memo forbidding college education.

Small-minded stereotypes are nothing more than that.

48

Whitney Heichel's body found on Larch Mt., man charged in murder

by trujw in

very sad as was said by a poster earlier our shared one time faith makes it seem as if you knew her.

rip.

The family made it clear that Holt was only "an irregular attendee of our meetings." Why the rush to judgment to make him a Witness? All sorts of people attend the meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses, some of whom would never qualify to be Witnesses.

Better to blame Holt's actions on the demon-possessed world to which he still belonged.

12

After a couple of days pondering the "new light" FDS change . . .

by leaving_quietly in

so, i've had a chance to ponder this "new light" of the change of definition of fds now for a couple of days.

the initial reaction was of astonishment, and just plain anger, and i can see that i'm not alone in that.

however (assuming matt 24:45-47 is prophetic, parable or not):.

rmnnoute

The "new light" is that Jehovah's Witnesses do not use the expression "new light" any more, and haven't used it for several decades. When people talk about "new light," they immediately identify themselves as people who are out of the loop.

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

rmnnoute

I am not sure that it is helpful (or legitimate) to retroject Trinitarian philosophical terms back into John's original theology or into the Sahidic Coptic version. The New Testament itself does not describe the relationship between Father and Son as one of exact equality or identical quality. Even so, John does not indicate that the Logos is defined in terms of ? θε?ς , but simply in terms of θε?ς . To share divine nature does not make the Logos God any more than it makes Christians who partake of the divine nature, God. -- 2 Peter 1:4

Ontological identity of the Logos with God would mean that Jesus is also the Father, which Trinitarianism claims to reject. But in fact, if the Logos is the same in every way with the Being described as God in the Bible, then "the Word is God" can only mean that the Word is the Father.

"For to us [Christians] there is one God, the Father." -- 1 Corinthians 8:6

Jesus himself never acknowledged anyone else as God but the Father.

Trinitarians like to play word games whereas Biblical teaching is simple: the Father is God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Father is the Head of Christ, and Christ is subordinate to God. Every power, position and authority that Christ possesses was given to him by God, and even in heaven Christ is subject to the Father, his God.

But I shall not engage in a debate about Trinitarianism. That debate has gone on for 1600 years, with no resolution. Even despite declarations of heresy by those calling themselves Orthodox, even despite bans and burnings, exile and martyrdom, there have always been Christians who refused to accept the church's Trinitarian tradition over simple Bible truth.

The bottom line is that those who want to believe in the Trinity will do so, and those who find no adequate reason to believe in the Trinity will not do so.

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

rmnnoute

Correct, I would think that Origen might be a good starting point in understanding the prevalent theology of Egyptian Christianity at the time the Sahidic Coptic version was produced. At one point, Origen was the head of the religious seminary at Alexandria, Egypt, and a contemporary of the Coptic translators. See especially Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John, as found in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 9.

"We next notice John's use of the [Greek] article in these sentences. He does not write without care in this respect, nor is he unfamiliar with the niceties of the Greek tongue...The true God, then, is 'The God,' and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as if it were, of the prototype. But the archetypical image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father." -- ANF, volume 9, page 323

Subordinationist, yes.

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

rmnnoute

There is a real problem in assuming that the 2nd/3rd century Coptic Christians had any modern theology in mind when they did their translating. Certainly the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it today was not standardized then, nor univerally accepted, and the same Egypt that produced Athanasius also produced Arius. But it would be incorrect to put the Coptic translators on either side. The Sahidic Coptic version displays nothing but a rather literal translation of the Greek text(s) that were available at the time.

Thus, we cannot assume that the Coptic translation of John 1:1c has any Trinitarian context.

Coptic scholar Bentley Layton, in his grammar book Coptic in 20 Lessons (2007) , page 7, gives an indefinite literal reading to Coptic John 1:1c, not a qualitative one: "a god is the Word." In his larger grammar book, A Coptic Grammar (2004), page 227, Layton shows that (depending on context) the Coptic indefinite article - common noun construction, such as found at Coptic John 1:1c, can be translated as "a god" (indefinite) or as "divine" (qualitative, although Coptic grammar does not use this term for nouns, and "adjectival" or "denotative" are the proper Coptic terms).

Such are the grammatical issues. Theological issues are more nebulous and should not be confused with the grammatical ones.

However, it may be noted that Jehovah's Witnesses have no problem with seeing John 1:1c as "qualitative," so long as the normal, regular, dictionary definition of that term is adhered to. Trinitarians, however, keep trying to morph "qualitative" into a definite reading and meaning of the verse. That is where the distinction lies.

I would encourage any student of Sahidic Coptic to spend the time it takes to read the entire Sahidic Coptic New Testament, to see how the Copts understood their Greek texts, and the grammar they employed in doing so. It is not really sufficient to frame the topic as one between Jehovah's Witnesses and Trinitarians.

25

Response to the Watchtower's Coptic John 1:1 claim in academic journal

by slimboyfat in

a couple of years ago the watchtower published an article claiming the coptic version of john 1:1 supported their translation of john 1:1.. http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/165941/1/coptic-john-1-1-makes-it-into-the-watchtower.

a few months ago this article was published in the journal of theological studies apparently in response to the watchtower's claims.. http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/62/2/494.abstract.

the authors are from the dallas theological seminary, which seems to have something of a tradition when it comes to countering watchtower claims on john 1:1.. they argue unsurprisingly that the coptic of john 1:1 can be read in an orthodox way.

rmnnoute

You are correct. I have read the entire JTS article and it is not objective. It basically follows the same tactic as Daniel Wallace (also of Dallas Theological Seminary) in his book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. It is heavy on theology where one would expect objective grammatical analysis. It is too specifically biased against Jehovah's Witnesses.

The authors do not display any more than a minimal grasp of Coptic grammar. They do not go beyond the same mistakes made by Hommel and other Trinitarians in misapplying the different categories of Coptic nouns. They confuse idioms with regular Coptic syntax. Their examination of the way the Coptic noun NOYTE ("god") is used in the Bible is too narrow to be definitive.

The recent effort on the part of some scholars to see John 1:1c as qualitative does not really help the Trinitarian argument, which is based on a definite reading. That means they have to twist their "qualitative" reading into a definite one.

For a Witness response to the JTS article, see:

http://coptictextcrit.blogspot.com/2011/10/is-coptic-john-11c-primarily.html

143

Did Jesus resurrect Himself?

by brotherdan in

this is a common scripture, but i find it interesting that it is in direct conflict to jw belief.

john 2:19 says, "jesus answered them, "destroy this temple, and i will raise it again in three days.

" the jews replied, "it has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?

rmnnoute

One verse cannot stand against all the many other verses that say clearly that it was God (the Father) who resurrected Jesus.

At best, it means that Jesus willingly and gladly did his Father's will and this put him in line to be resurrected by God.

As to whether he meant his physical body or his spiritual "body" is a matter of interpretation.

But if Jesus took back his physical body, which was a sacrifice for our sins, we have no deliverance.

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."