Posts by KalebOutWest

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.

KalebOutWest

Earnest:

So the central question which no-one seems to want to answer is, if scribe A (or the scribe of his exemplar) did not understand Revelation 3:14 meant Jesus was God's first creation, why did he alter it?

If you are referring to the Codex Sinaiticus, this is an answer. The Codex Sinaiticus, and the book of Revelation found therein, is not the same text as what came to be accepted by Christianity and the Church almost a generation later.

The entire Codex not only contains a different reading at Revelation 3:14 but in many other areas throughout, not only Revelation but in every one of its books.

Not only that, it has other books in its collection not found in the New Testament canon--because there was no official canon yet. When the Codex was assembled, the Marcionist threat was a problem for Christianity (the teaching of salvation limited to the means by learning from a canon assembled by Marcion of Sinope, a heretical bishop that claimed he was "a follower of Paul," the apostle).

The Codex contains in its canon not merely variations, but two of the most popular books of Christianity: The Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas.

This Codex was created before the canonization of the New Testament. It is generally understood to be from the family of works commissioned by Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity in 312 CE.

The New Testament canon's list of 27 books was finalized in 367 CE by Eusebius and given the stamp of approval by the Easter letter of Bishop Athansius of that same year. It was affirmed as "canon" in the year 382, making it the "New Testament" at the Canon of Trent at affirmed in the Syndod of Hippo. This codex, however, predates the Eusebius canon by 45 to 50 years if not more.

It is also not the standard reading that was being circulated at that time, nor was Revelation a popular book. By the time the Codex found its way to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, because of the fact that the readings were considered non-canonical and the fact that the collection contained non-canonical books not accepted by Christianity, someone that did not realize what the collection could mean to history tossed it aside to be burned with the rubbish.

Early writings do not mean "canonical," at least in Christianity. It might confuse some, and they do offer considerable insight, don't give me wrong. But to a Christian world where religious teaching did not stem from religious texts, and since at the time the Marcionist threat was all about "basing doctrine on Scripture," one has to develop a completely different viewpoint here.

The Codex Sinaiticus is different everywhere, not just in one spot. If a difference is what you are going to call out Christianity on the simple basis of one reading from this Codex, then it all falls because Christianity existed before this Codex.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

Oh, for crying out loud! You are all a bunch of spoiled brats who want to promote your own ideas. You can't think outside your self-serving bubbles if you tried!

If you are a mainstream or a mainline Christian, you understand the story to be an allegorical one, with the snake being identified with Satan but as the Church Fathers and modern theologians state only by illustration. Since Genesis was not written with Revelation in mind or with Christianity in mind, one cannot possibly claim that "the Bible was written to claim" that the snake was Satan--or that Jesus would later call him as the "Father of the lie" but at the same time not state that he was linking this to the Genesis account (which at John 8:44 there is no mention whatsoever).

If you are a Fundamentalist Christian, you might claim that the statement in John 8:44 was somehow discussing Satan in Genesis chapter 3 and "the dragon, the age-old serpent" as mention in Revelation 12:9, but you have a hard time explaining how Genesis was purposefully written with either of the other two texts in mind in light of the official canonization process. The canon of the Bible was created in response to the heresy of Macion of Sinope and not due to the popular readings of the Christian community. If the popular books of the Christian community were chosen, the Apocalypse of Peter would have been chosen instead of the Revelation to John, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Wisdom of Solomon would have been included, more Epistles of Peter would have been included (except for 2 Peter) and less of the Pauline library (if any). The gospel of Luke appears in the New Testament because it was the counterfeit gospel that Marcion claimed to have written (and he removed the first two chapters). Paul's letters appear in the canon because Marcion edited all evidence of Paul's pro-Jewish comments, claiming Paul did not believe in the God of the Jews. Luke's work of Acts is included (Luke, by the way is neither an Apostle nor a Jew, yet his work is elevated to Apostolic witness in the canon by the Church Fathers to counter Marcion).

If you are Jewish, the snake is the same character as the donkey in Numbers chapter 22. It is a Hebrew trope that represents a "crisis of conscience" in the Torah (remember that Genesis chapter 3 is the same book as Numbers 22 in Hebrew in Judaism, known as "the Torah"). In Genesis the "snake" is the "crisis" of Eve, whether or not she should break the Ten Commandment against "stealing" and partaking of the forbidden fruit. In Numbers, the "donkey" is the "crisis" of Balaam to "use the Name of the Lord in vain" and "bear false witness" by giving a false oracle in the Name of the Lord and cursing Israel. When Eve listens to the "snake" or her "conscience," both are punished. When Balaam listens to his "conscience," both are allowed to live. If you notice, in both narratives, another trope is used, an angel with a sword that represents "death" as divine judgment. (And notice how both Eve and Balaam speak to "their animal" as if animals can always speak, as if nothing is out of place--this is because it is merely a narrative device.)

If you are angry at God, you are just looking for any reason to blame God. You don't really care.

You aren't reading through anything. You aren't looking up information that is outside of your bubble of interest. You are just angry. And you claim God doesn't exist. But you can't be angry at something that isn't real. You should be angry at the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

You can't be angry at a myth or a book or religions that you are not and have never been a part of. It is illogical.

And if you really wanted to know the answer, you would stop arguing and go and get a degree in theology.

But you don't really want an answer.

You are just angry.

Angry people don't want answers.

It's okay to be angry and not want answers, however. But it isn't the fault of any story or the characters within it, no matter how mythical or false. You anger is real. Myths and allegories are not. You cannot heal your feelings and viewpoints and opinions by arguing over allegories and religions that you will not get formal education on (or feel you do not need or require). You are real. Your opinions are real. Star Wars, Harry Potter, and the folklore and myths and legends of my people the Jews, and not.

You are being very unhealthy in dealing with your realities.

299

Who told the first lie?

by nicolaou in

this is a continuation of the discussion which sprang from an unrelated topic.. so according to genesis, who told the first lie?

god told eve that if she ate from the tree of knowledge she would die that very same day.

in response to that statement the devil told her she would not die.. eve ate from the tree and did not die.

KalebOutWest

I was on my way out (and it's my last day of vacation, so I may not be around for quite some time if at all--I believe have a different road ahead that will take me different places).

However, being a Hebrew speaker, the King James Bible has influenced most English Bible to read: "In the day you eat of it you will surely die..." as if the Hebrew word in this instance is simply YOM.

Is is not YOM as in Genesis 1:5. The word here is BEYOM, and (as a rabbi had it drilled into me--in a very, very, very boring way I might add), though they are related and sound the same because of the root, they do not mean the same thing.

One, YOM, means a literal day, such as when the sun goes up and then the sun sets. But BEYOM refers to a period of the time, such as the expression, "in the day of Moses, such and such happened..."

For instance, notice Leviticus 14:57:

to determine when it is unclean and when it is clean. This is the rule for defiling diseases

Notice the first highlighted use of the word "when." That word in the Hebrew is BEYOM.

And here it is the very first time is appears in the Bible, Genesis 2:4:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created.

The KJV, the NAB, and the NIV renders this verse as "in the day they were created" instead of using "when" as the NRSV and RSV above.

Note Genesis 30:33:

So my honesty will answer for me later, when you come to look into my wages with you.

Here, in the above verse, BEYOM is rendered as "in time to come" in the KJV.

It is this Hebrew word, BEYOM, not YOM that is used at Genesis 2:17 and 3:5:

"BEYOM you eat of it, you will die."

In Hebrew, when you are called to the bimah to read this section from the Torah, what does a B'Mitzvah or a nominal Jew understand this portion of the text to mean?

It means something like:

"When you eat of it" or "As soon you bite into it" and not the very 24-hour period or YOM. In other words, death begins with that first bite or "you seal your death with your taking of it," like that.

English is what you call "epigrammatic," meaning very exact in what it says. That is why we are having arguments today about "inclusive language." Should we use the word "maneater" anymore? Is that word, therefore "sexist," implying that such an animal does not eat women too? (Weird, I know.)

Hebrew is the opposite. It's words are layered with meaning. And you cannot match a Hebrew word or phrase between these two languages (English and Hebrew) very easily because of this fact. YOM and BEYOM are very good examples. To the English mind and ear a "day" is just a "day" is just a "day." But this is not the same in Hebrew (this also creates problem with the so-called Jesus rising on the "third day," which I will not go into here, but there you go).

To begin with, this is just an allegory or myth, at least to the Jews. It did not happen. (Sorry JWs and Fundie Christians.) It's a story about God owning a garden in the style of a Babylonian hanging garden of his own and hiring the forebearers of Abraham to work as caretakers. When they steal from God, God banishes them to live outside, "east of Eden." In the eyes of the Jews it is a foreshadowing of the last book of the Torah where Moses, being on the "east of the Jordan," outside of the Promised Land, accepts his fate. Adam and Eve are the same "character" as Moses: all three represent the exiled people of God living "east" of their Promised Land due to breaking the Law as all three characters did (Moses pissed off God too, remember?), thus getting cast out for "breaking the Law" or the Torah. It's an allegory.

God did not "lie" as God probably never told anyone not to steal from him as God never had this conversation or a garden in the first place, etc.

And the word BEYOM, while you can translate as "day" if you want to translate word-for-word, actually means "when" in this case. Translating "word-for-word" doesn't work. It get's you in trouble (try doing that next time you're in Mexico and ordering food or getting directions in Spanish and see what happens)

This story is just a religious lesson to the Jews on not to break the Law Covenant again or they will end up being exiled once more as the Torah was compiled after the Exile to Babylon. God is no less a character than Adam and Eve, the snake, and the talking donkey that later shows up in Numbers chapter 22 of the same book (its all Torah people...just one long book of Law, not history, Law.)

Oy vey. Good night. Live long and prosper. All hail the Rebel Alliance. Snoopy rules!

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

Thank you, Vandehoven and aqwsed.

I knew the answers to the questions I was posting. They are actually asked by scholars and academics when we give tests on this verse.

They also are listed like this (almost) in some Bibles, such as The Ignatius Study Bible New Testament (and its upcoming full Bible release which will be out in November, later this year).

The idea was to show that the two people I was talking to--especially FA--had made mental spaghetti of their own arguments and had not even opened a simple mainstream study Bible where these questions (and the answers) appear. (There are actually far more condensed that what you provided aqwsed, but well done. Vanderhoven, you gave what is called the "Hillel" answer: "What can be said while standing on one foot.")

Peacefulpete knows his stuff. I don't understand what happens during a discussion sometimes, but I think my time here is mostly wasted. I've said that before, but I think I truly mean it now.

I understand the meaning of POMI in some people, being out of the Watchtower but never being able to escape it for one reason or another. And I am truly sorry. It's not my job, I know, to help rescue anyone, either inside or out, neither do I feel that. (People will be insulted thinking I am talking about anyone in particular, I am sure.)

The teacher in me is very exact and demanding. But he comes out when others tend to challenge and demand, claiming they "know" and "understand" and I do not. I have learned to just try and let them. They will have to stay in this state.

Most of you here do understand the difference. You don't have to know a lot. You don't have to have a degree. You don't have to be an academic or a teacher or a Jew or religious or anything like that.

You merely have to avoid claiming you know something that you don't--while avoiding getting in the face of someone who does and may be just trying to help.

There are a lot of helpers here. And there are a few people with big sticks running around clobbering them on the heads when they try and help.

It's a shame.

Over and out--Kaleb.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

Notice how you two are just blabbering and not answering any of my questions. I am not saying Jesus isn't the Son of God. I am not saying Jesus isn't the Messiah or isn't God's Son or these miracles did not impress the centurion.

Peacefulpete, your statements are fine, but they don't answer any of my questions. Not a single one. It's like you ignored everything I posted.

The text reads:

After [Jesus'] resurrection [on what people normally call Easter morning] they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

Regardless of the details, Pete, the text says these saints or holy ones came out after Jesus rose, after Jesus' own resurrection.

Since FA considers the Church Fathers as heretics, I cannot for the sake of argument introduce any of the details they claim about this text forward such as:

the "saints" are the Jewish patriarchs

the event occurred in the following order--earthquake, tombs opening, saints rising, appearances, after Easter they went to Jesus into heaven

the statement of the centurion is an "aside" that got interrupted the detail of the comment about the saints as all the centurion saw was the earthquake and perhaps the tombs in the vicinity opening, but he had no access to the Temple curtain and was not a witness to any of the saintly appearances

the risen patriarchs preached the good news of Christ as Jesus came to release them from the netherworld

These details are based on those who knew the apostle Matthew before his martyrdom. The gospel of Matthew is actually partially preserved in the writings of the Fathers, unlike the others.

However, since these details are "heresy," they must be viewed as "incorrect." Neither FA or others can introduce them to FA's approval.

So my questions:

Who are these people who came out?
Since they came out on Easter Sunday with Jesus, obviously the centurion witnessed Jesus too. You cannot claim that this is an "aside" comment as that would be heresy. Why don't the other gospels mention the centurion as a witness to Jesus' resurrection? Why don't they talk about the rising of these people?
How long were these people alive that came out of the tombs?
Who did they appear to? Where did they go? And etc. See my above post.

In other words, you can't have it both ways. If the Church Fathers are wrong, this isn't a cafeteria, you need to explain why they are heretics and what makes their claims heretical. You cannot just say: They are heretics.

Next: You can't pick and choose some of their claims, such as: "Well, I like the point of the holy ones being the patriarchs..." No. That comes from the Church Fathers.

"I like the part of the centurion's comments being an aside comment interrupted by the comment about the rising of the bodies of the tombs.."

Nope, that's the Church Fathers.

If you made the claim from the start that the Church Fathers are heretics, then you have to have new and totally original answers as to all of this. Who are these people? What? Where? When? How?

You can't pick and choose what you see as fact and fiction without explaining yourself. Otherwise you make spaghetti, which is what you just did.

And you aren't answering anything. Just blabbering. Who cares how a text was made, etc. When a person asks questions, if you don't answer them, you failed. Get it? It means you cannot answer. I gave a lot of questions--AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER ONE OF THEM...WHY NOT?

Don't back yourself into a corner because you are too stubborn to let go of your point of view because you have to be right.

I am through with you and this. Enjoy being Jehovah's Witnesses, because that is what you still are.

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.

KalebOutWest

FrangrantAddendum:

we know this messenger is jesus because he looks so much like his father....

I am sorry, but what type of Fresh-out-of-the-Watchtower-culty reasoning is this?

We know because "he looks so much like his father"?

What?

Since when do we know what God looks like?

I guess John 1:18 can be thrown out.

Maybe FA is thinking of John 14:9 ('if you've seen me...'), but then we might as well be going down the road of Mormonism, being 'made in the image of God' (Ge 1:27) as that being literal and meaning God has genitals and has sex with a spirit Goddess and gives birth to spirit children through her spirit sex organs like earthly women, right? Pass the Golden Plates, I need something to put my dinner on.

I might as well read the August 2024 Watchtower and believe that it is inspired of God than believe FA's reasoning.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

Besides the fact that FA has no problem with Aqwsed translating the Greek word HAGION as "saint" but won't allow me to do (claiming that when I do it that the use of the term "saint" is incorrect), let us say for the sake of argument that the above does work.

There is are several problem besides the above paradox of FA flip-flopping.

The text reads as follows:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”--Matthew27:51-54, NRSVue, italics added.

According to Scripture these "bodies of the saints" did not "come out of the tombs" until "after the resurrection" of Jesus.

This creates a series of questions:

Did these holy ones or "saints" rise after Jesus death or after Jesus rose on Easter morning? Or did they rise due to the quake and the ripping of the Temple curtain?

And after they rose, did the centurion witness this event? Was this what he was speaking of? If this is so, did he also witness the resurrection of Jesus? Why not? Or why did he? Or is this just speaking of the centurion speaking of witnessing the earthquake and subsequent events, not necessarily all the events listed?

The other gospel writers, including Jewish and secular historians (like Josephus) are silent regarding this event. So explain:

Who is being raised? How long were they raised? To where? What kind of body? Since none of these people could have exercised faith in Jesus before, could they have entered heaven? How were they able to therefore rise? Explain the theology?

Who were these witnesses and what did they witness according to Matthew 27:53?

These "saints" had to have been raised on Easter morning after Jesus according to Colossians 1:18, especially if they were not disciples of Jesus in some manner. Explain.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

FragrantAddendum:

Διαβάζω ελληνικά πάνω από 30 χρόνια. Έχω γνωρίσει ανθρώπους σαν εσένα. Νομίζεις ότι είσαι έξυπνος. Αλλά έχεις κολλήσει σε ψεύτικες σκέψεις. Μάλλον χρειάζεστε υπολογιστή για να το μεταφράσετε.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

FA writes:

the mt 27 thing where it says the bodies came out of the graves and were seen was a flesh and blood resurrection like the ones elijah and elisha did - they weren't "spirits" who appeared like ghosts or something--Italics added.

That is incorrect.

The text does not use the word "resurrection."

Matthew 27:52 reads:

καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν

And many bodies of the sleeping saints rose

The word "resurrection" does not occur.

About these "saints" verse 53 says they "appeared to many" but does not say they were 'seen as flesh and blood' as you claim.

Various account in the Fathers, on the basis of these verses, I repeat, the Church Fathers themselves who you owe the very preservation and canonization of the New Testament to, claim that these 'appearences' were likely "apparitions" if they did occur at all.

Nowhere in the Biblical text, and nowhere in the Fathers do we read of a resurrection of these "saints" being "flesh and blood" and that these were seen as you state.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

The word "resurrection" does not refer to the Christian belief of going to heaven after death. Instead it refers to the bodily rising from the grave at the end of time.

As "The Apostles' Creed" states:

I believe in...the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

From the original Latin:

Credo...in...carnis resurrectionem.

Which is literally: "physical" or "bodily resurrection."

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.--CCC 1016.

The Greek word "resurrection" does not mean to come back to life as a spirit person after death. The word means "to stand up, again," as in "physically."

While my writing this is not to say this reflects the religious beliefs of my Jewish community, Thayer's, Strong's, and others will agree with the creed and the CCC that it means a physical rising of the body, a reanimation of what has been put to death. This is why the Greeks laughed at Paul when he mentioned "resurrection" as recorded at Acts 17:32 because they believed in a spiritual afterlife, not a physical one.

The author of Matthew was referring to the resurrection. The Church Fathers wrote that this event did not occur on a grand scale. Therefore this verse, the Church Fathers wrote, must be speaking of enjoying the Beatific Vision.