To 'know all possible futures available for humans to choose...but set up reality in such a way that allows freedom' is self-contradictory. You are saying he rigged the game to achieve an outcome that resulted from free choice. It also burdens this God with the consequences of his actions. The 'reality he set up' is responsible for trillions of deaths from predation and disease and hundreds of billions of human deaths from disease old age and war. Not a great God.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
10
The Deficient Theism of the Watchtower
by aqwsed12345 in"for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the lord.
for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
" (isaiah 55:8-9).
-
-
-
10
The Deficient Theism of the Watchtower
by aqwsed12345 in"for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the lord.
for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
" (isaiah 55:8-9).
-
-
peacefulpete
Slim.....boiled down that essentially means God chose to create a reality that he does not fully control or understand. Not philosophically satisfying but relatable.
-
10
The Deficient Theism of the Watchtower
by aqwsed12345 in"for my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the lord.
for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
" (isaiah 55:8-9).
-
-
peacefulpete
You've done a good job outlining the history of the God concept. The ironic part of it is as God became transcendent he became distant. When the Greeks closed philosophical loopholes through esoteric terminology, actual belief in God became an intellectual exercise. Few humans like exercise. This was the driving reason for the popularity of 'Second Power' agents. God needed someone through which to interact with a creation so fundamentally different from himself. Those agents, had limits, were more approachable intellectually and could be described. Effectively, 'Jesus' was a counter reaction to the transcendence imposed on the God of the OT. God could be understood by non-philosophers again. Those who crave a god, crave one that 'gets them' and they 'get him'. God as a fully matured concept is burdened by the need to be something people can't relate with. Modern people, just the same as those living 2000 years ago, might intellectualize about God being the 'essence of being' but deep-down prefer the anthropomorphic God.
-
1
Road to Emmaus?
by peacefulpete ini'll again keep this a brief post.
earlier i posted that jesus, like the ot patriarch jacob "rolled away the massive stone" to release water for his sheep, (jacob and the rock'n rollers).
“surely the lord is in this place, and i was not aware of it.” .
-
-
peacefulpete
edit
-
1
Road to Emmaus?
by peacefulpete ini'll again keep this a brief post.
earlier i posted that jesus, like the ot patriarch jacob "rolled away the massive stone" to release water for his sheep, (jacob and the rock'n rollers).
“surely the lord is in this place, and i was not aware of it.” .
-
-
peacefulpete
I'll again keep this a brief post.
Earlier I posted that Jesus, like the OT patriarch Jacob "rolled away the massive stone" to release water for his sheep, (Jacob and the Rock'n Rollers). Soon thereafter, according to Luke 24, he makes an appearance as a stranger to 2 of his followers on the road to Emmaus. When they arrive in the village at nightfall, he gives them bread and they immediately recognize the stranger as the Lord.
A familiar story. However, there are some interesting variants preserved in the Codex Bezae. Notable is the name of the village. It is not 'Emmaus' but 'Oulammaous' in the Bezae. This name appears only once...in the LXX version of Genesis 28; the location where Jacob stops at nightfall while fleeing his brother after betraying his father's trust with a 'kiss' and lies. It is here that Jacob sees the Lord (or the "Word" of the Lord ,Memra in the Aramaic Targum). Jacob says,
“Surely the Lord is in this place, and I was not aware of it.”
He then says;
"If the Lord God will be with me, and guard me throughout on this journey, on which I am going, and give me bread to eat,...then shall the Lord be for a God to me."
There are actually many literary connections linking the Genesis Jacob story and Gospels.
So, what then explains the "Emmaus" in the Alexandrian Textual forms? First some background. The two words/names are not related and have nothing in common other than sounding kind of, somewhat similar. As I mentioned Oulammaous is the LXX name for the village where Jacob engages with the Word/Lord. The word itself was a mistranslation of the Hebrew [ulam luz] i.e.. "formerly Luz". The place in the story was formerly named 'Luz' but Jacob renamed it 'Bethel' because of his engaging with God there. The Hebrew, "formerly Luz" was mistaken by the translators of the LXX as being the name and bingo the village was now called Oulammaous. (The “L” in Luz was changed to a second “M” following common phonetic practice) This LXX form of the story was the most widely known in the first century and this is certainly the form the writer of Luke used and surprisingly preserved in the Codex Bezae.
What apparently happened is that early Christain scribes were unaware of the LXX Jacob connection and assumed the Oulammaous they saw in Luke was a scribal error or some variation of the city 'Emmaus'.
The manuscripts are split on the distance to Jerusalem from this village. Some say 60 stadia (about 7 miles) some say 160 (about 19 miles). Emmaus was about 160 stadia whereas Luz was closer, about 90 stadia. (there are many different distances found on the internet so I mention the most commonly repeated) This discrepancy might be explained easily as unfamiliarity with the region, but some understand that 60 to be a symbolic distance. 10 times the distance lawful to travel on the Sabbath (6 stadia per Josephus). The likely change to 160 stadia shows an awareness of a problem identifying Emmaus as the intended setting. But this then strains the narrative of the two guys walking that distance and possibly back in a day. (vss13,29)
Notably, the added conclusion to Mark (longer ending) attempts to harmonize Mark with Luke through the inclusion of this road to Emmaus story. However, the author, likely aware of the issue, avoided the name and simply said 'road to the country'.
So, to sum up, among the many OT stories that were brilliantly sourced for the Gospels, we have those from Genesis involving Jacob, that highly revered patriarch that met God on the road to Luz. Ironically this allusion might have been missed had it not been for a scribal error in the LXX that was incorporated into Luke when crafting his reenactment/rewriting of the Jacob story.
Now you know what the author of Luke meant when he wrote:
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. (24:27)
-
24
SPIMI Friend Asked Me For The Name Of My (FORMER) Congregation
by HiddlesWife ina present-spimi friend texted me to ask me the name of my congregation--which is my former and last one that i left right after becoming completely/presently pomo.
she was a longtime buddy, who was pimq-pimo-ppimi-on-occasion for many decades.
then shortly before the pandemic, she was dating a brother who was reaching out to become an ms [mind you, this guy was a mic-handler for several decades as well--until an older brother (who was a close friend of his uncle--who converted him into the cultporation years ago--encouraged him to the point of harrassing him to move up the wt corporate ladder🙄😤].
-
-
peacefulpete
Be kind, be polite, ask about her life, make new friends
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
The issue raised in this thread is that the NWT corrupted its translation of Zechariah 12:10. Quite clearly that is not so unless you wish to argue that is true of John also.
That is precisely the real issue. (by issue I don't mean 'corruption' as much as adaptation) The pre-Christian history of interpretation and revision of the original Zechariah text resulted in use not intended by the author. Whether the author of John, living 500 years later, translated from Hebrew himself or used an available Greek variant, is of truly secondary importance. The text had by his time been variously reworded/interpreted because of progressive theological concerns and burgeoning Messianic trends.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
OK, getting to the bottom of this using only online resources is not easy. Ultimately the medieval (10th century) "L" your AI referenced is a primary Theodotionic manuscript, it really has no relevance to the discussion other than confirming what was already said that 2nd century Theodosius revised the LXX to conform more closely with Hebrew forms. "R" is the more relevant manuscript. It predates Theodosius, (1rst c.BC-late 1rst c.CE) and is therefore regarded as the unique example of an early Greek revision (R) of the LXX that may have been available to NT writers. It has actually come up before in arguments about the Tetragrammaton, as it includes the by then archaic YHWH in paleo-Hebrew in many places. The wording in neither manuscript is identical to John but the earliness of the idiosyncratic wording in R is suggestive that the writer of John might have been aware of it or some other early form available, but this is far from certain. The author of John may simply have, as was his practice, paraphrased for the typological purposes he used it. To insist either way is overstating the facts available.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
I'm coming to conclude that "L" in fact generally reads like the Theodotian form but at 12:10 follows the usual LXX. The "R" 8HevXIIgr, Nahal Hever Scroll on the other hand reads more like John's quote. In short, there were many versions and idiosyncratic attempts to translate this theologically and grammatically awkward passage. Some attempts were stimulus for fresh interpretation. If the author of John was using one of these in a few selective locations rather than translating it himself, his choice was made for Christological reasons.
-
79
Zechariah 12:10 Corruption in the NWT
by Sea Breeze inhere's a question for those who still support watchtower on this forum.
why did watchtower leave out the word "me" in zech.
zechariah 12:10 reads like this: .
-
-
peacefulpete
I'm very disappointed you chose not to engage as a human being. I appreciate the information regarding the theory that "L" represents a form of LXX that might explain some word choice by the writer of John. That of course is an interesting possibility, consistent with the usual suggestion that the writers may have had some now lost idiosyncratic Greek form rather than being an original Johannine translation. While interesting, the suggestion that this obscure manuscript represents proof of that is not terribly relevant to the larger discussion about how theology shaped the interpretation of a difficult text. Your AI program needs to be set aside, and you need to express yourself using your own mind for me to continue to engage with you.