Posts by KalebOutWest

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

MeanMrMustard

I'm sticking with my theory that God lied to Adam and Eve because that's all he do to keep them in line...Telling Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree because it was "wrong" would be like trying to convince your dog not to drink from the antifreeze spill in your garage - you just can't do it.

This is an example of "The Mandela Effect," the belief in an occurrence of an event which never actually took place. None of the above happened in the story. Even the punishment phase of the story is famous for showing this did not take place, but people constantly say this is what happened.

It's like people quoting Darth Vader from The Empire Strikes Back: "Luke, I am your father!" That never happened. The line was: "No, I am your father!" That is "The Mandela Effect."

Genesis 2:16 and 17 says that God only told "the man" this instruction. According to this narrative, neither the woman nor the serpent had even been created yet. (See Genesis 2:18-22.) So it is not possible for either the woman or the serpent to have overheard the instruction from God. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was a genuine lie. According to the narrative, the woman and the serpent were not around to hear it. Only Adam was. But in the story there is no indication that Adam ever told either one of them.

Oddly, in the punishment phase, Adam gets the death penalty for the following:

"Because you listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree..."--Genesis 3:17.

Adam gets punished because he obeyed Eve instead of obeying God. According to the narrative, this was not the way God had intended.

As The SBL commentators point out:

The woman is the focus of the story, while the man is her passive companion: [the text reads] her husband, who was with her [and not the other way around]. The woman's command over the man will be reversed in v. 16, the curse of (and justification for) male authority [in this narrative]...Woman gets cursed with male authority, which reverses her previous command over the man.

If you are saying that Adam was created without literal knowledge of "good and evil" and that God's command was therefore like expecting a dog to know the difference between sweet poison and sweet juice, then you are also saying that the other aspects of the text are literal too.

How did the woman learn the command not to eat of the fruit? The text does not say that Adam told her, does it?

How does the serpent know the command? Why does it speak and the other animals do not? If Adam taught the command to Eve, and that is how she learned it, then does that mean according to the same logic that the serpent learned it the same way--from Adam?

And then if you are to be believed, why did you remember this narrative incorrectly in the first place? How can we trust someone who can't even remember the narrative correctly to start with?

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

And before you ask:

"If it is myth, then what did Jesus die for?"

The word "myth" does not mean "false" in academia. It means "origin." It only means "false" among people who tend to use it that way in the vernacular. (Like when some people call all soda pop "Coke," even though all soda pop is not "Coke.")

"Mythology" is an ancient genre where writers who did not know exactly how to express facts or truths about the origin of something used tropes common to their culture to explain it. For example, Pandora's Box is a myth that explains the origins of the world's troubles and why human's still hold onto hope despite them all, employing metaphors as a means to explain this.

The narrative of the Garden of Eden is not about Jesus Christ or this sacrifice however. That is a completely different religion, namely Christianity. The Church Fathers admit that their interpretation of the narrative is based upon seeing new meaning into the story, such as they did with Jonah and the resurrection of Jesus, with Jonah being a type of Jesus, and Jonah's coming out from the whale as a typification of Christ's resurrection (based upon something Jesus himself briefly taught).

The original Garden of Eden origin story is about the Fall of Man, but not about original sin. It is about disobeying the Mosaic Law, notably the Jews being disobedient to God, and likely their losing access to the Temple and the Promised Land at the Exile to Babylon. The question is: Why do we sin like this? Because we have been like this since the beginning. It is part of our nature. Like God tells Cain, you need to fight this beast or it will get the better of you.The choice is yours.--Genesis 4:7.

In Watchtower theology, the story is historical fact: it happened as written. No questions asked. And Jesus died to counter Adam's death. It is not a Jewish story. It is a Christian story. End of line.

In nomimal Christian theology, Jesus died as part of his life: God came in the Person of Jesus to experience everything you and I experience from birth to life to death, even unjust rejection--the worst even. God allowed this to happen to him so that we could experience life "in his image" to the fullest. God was partaking of our life by undergoing a death life ours.

The allegorical/mythical understanding of the Genesis story is not required where there is not an exact ransom as demanded by Watchtower standards. For the Watchtower, where there is not a God that lays down His life so that you and I can be "partakers of the Divine Nature" (2 Peter 1:4), the idea becomes cartoonish with literal talking snakes and demanding deities and a Governing Body that sets all kind of weird dates confusing people with perfection and confusion about myths from an old book that don't tell you much about the real world you are living in.

The Jew in me is not necessarily claiming you should or should not believe in one Christian standard or another. I am just reporting on these things.

And thus the meaning of "myth."

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

TonusOH:

So we could have had a universe where everyone was always happy and no one ever suffered.

According to The SBL Study Bible, Oxford's Catholic Study Bible, and the JPS Jewish Study Bible, the narrative of Genesis never promises immoratality or eternal life to humans even if they never partake of the fruit of the tree from which God forbids.

"Man seems to have been made mortal" states The SBL Study Bible in its commentary to Genesis chapter 3, pointing to the fact that after his "eyes are opened" that "he will be conscious of his mortality, another addition to his self-knowledge."

There are a set of ironic realities mentioned regarding this via a play on words: Adam renames Woman after his condemnation or curse. Why?

Adam's name in Hebrew is basically the name from which he was formed and where he is told he will return, which is a reminder that he is not immortal (adamah), being told that he was formed "from the dust of the ground."--2:7.

Adam renames his wife "Eve," which means (of all things) "Life." This is ironic as they have been cut off from the Tree of Life. (In Hebrew, the same root word is used for both by the way, as in the Hebrew expression "L-Chaim," meaning "To life!")

The Tree of Life is guarded by "cherubim" and a "flaming sword." It represents, originally, the Holy of Holies in the Hebrew Temple. According to The SBL Study Bible:

The eastern entrance, the cherubim, and the sacred trees suggest an analogy with the Jerusalem temple, which had similar architectural and iconographic features as well as a limitation on access into it.

When the Church Fathers interpreted this story by means of allegory, the narrative to suggest the Fall of Man, the Tree of Life changed from the Holy of Holies to the Cross of Christ. With the 'tearing of the veil in two' at the death of Jesus (Matthew 27:50-51), access to God by means of the Cross was made possible, making eternal life available and turning what would normally be a wooden instrument of death into a "Tree of Life."

While I think it would have been great that nobody would be suffering today, I don't think this mythical text describes the origins of reality. The religious groups that created this work (as their study Bibles prove) do not believe it is historical nor do they describe "God" in anthropomorphic terms as simple as this narrative or in the language of Watchtower theology. They understand the value of looking at this as it was written: myth.

We might learn good lessons from lore like this, even truths perhaps, but not facts.

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

And my final word is that none of this has to do with Revelation 3:14 or the significance of the Codex Sinaiticus.

If it did, then one could argue about accepting what else is in the same Codex, such as why don't Christians recognize the Epistle of Barnabas? There is far more of this that that tiny change.

Or better yet, as there are far more witnesses in far more canons all the way up until the canon was closed by the Church, why was the Shepherd of Hermas dismissed? This book repeatedly shows up not merely in canon lists but gets mentioned again and again by the Church Fathers and historians.

It is in this Codex. If were are going to argue on how significant this change must mean to history, why not accept the Shepherd of Hermas? Are you not reading it and living your life by it?

You are not.

Because the point is not this Codex. The point is not this verse.

The point is not that history has accepted the Trinity either.

The point is holding on to the Watchtower's view of the Trinity and trying not to admit that you still agree with the Watchtower.

So people often look for other lines of evidence and try not to say what they are actually saying because they don't like what they are saying.

But in reality there is only one type of Christianity. The issue has always been one thing. If it wasn't for the "Son of God" issue and what it means, Jews would likely have had an easier time with Jesus of Nazareth. Resurrection is not far-fetched. Coming back to finish the job--hey, Bar Kokhba did nothing before he was anointed "nasi" or "prince" (Messiah). It has always been the "I AM always with you, even to the end of the world" thing (see, even a Jew can see the connection in these verses--it's very, very plain).--Matthew 28:20.

So exJWs sometimes look for other ways to hold on to Watchtower views as last resorts. Hey--you don't have to accept Christianity. But you don't have to make up stuff either. You can be a Unitarian. There is a name for it, you know.

But you cannot change history. It happened a certain way. It's even recorded in Jewish history. My people know what the claims of Christianity were as it happened. The Pagans (capital "P" meaning the Romans also knew it meant worshipping Jesus as a deity) without reserve. One little change on one manuscript means nothing.

I know some of you--and it is just a few, very few--have trust issues with Bibles and books from mainstream scholars and religions, but that is where the information is: Oxford and the SBL and Judaism and yes, the Catholic Church. You are not joining these groups by reading and studying their works. These are the top notch scholars. You are losing out by not studying and knowing this stuff.

So I get very frustrated--only because that same very very few CLAIM you know things. And if you CLAIM, you had better walk the talk. Otherwise--like I did with you earlier Slimboyfat--someone else will embarrass you worse than I did.

Now believe whatever you want. I don't give a crap.

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

But it has nothing to do with the formation of the Trinity dogma.

Dogmas are negative responses to heresy not positive expressions teaching doctrine. By the time the Church developed the dogma of the Trinity, it was due to a controversy that was threatening a basic belief of Christianity.

Revelation is a book chosen to counter the Marcionist movement. It has nothing to do with the Trinity. Christianity did not grow from a text. It wrote a text. Religion first, controversy (Marcionist canon), then response: the New Testament.

It took some 200 to form the New Testament Canon, during which some of these texts changed. The Trinity was a done deal by the time that change in the Codex in question is being discussed. The Church had no more use for anything in Greek. Latin was the new standard being used for the Lectionary.

The official canon of the New Testament is the Latin text of Jerome of 383 CE. Any Greek changes to any Greek text made no difference to Christians after either the Trinity dogma or the New Testament Canon or Jerome's work.

That is history.

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

I don't make any of these things up.

I've taught for years in association with three synagogues and three churches, teaching religious education, history and languages. I am not making any of this up. I got a good education after leaving the Watchtower.

I am not saying this to boast. I have been trying to be helpful. But maybe I am naive.

Maybe you don't really want answers. Maybe you guys just want to debate and feel right?

I give up trying to help.

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

It is in my answer and in the general history of the Codex.

I already gave the years, the details of its origins, why it has so many differences, and why they are not considered changes to the Canonical text.

The Codex is from the early 300s but does not match the official Canonical text of the New Testament of the late 300s.

The Trinity is not based upon Biblical texts but arose from a tradition prior to both the Marcionist controversy and the production of the Codex.

The Canonical text of the Church was Latin, not Greek, it formed a Lectionary for public proclamation for Church readings not a book for personal reading (that did not actually occur until the famous barefoot walk of Mary Jones into the 1800s).

Some of you have very strange ideas of the significance of this text. It meant nothing until it's discovery. Like the Masoretic Text of Judaism (which was standardized in Hebrew), Christianity standardized its text in Latin for public reading in the Vulgate. It was that reading not any Greek text that was considered the inspired, canonized and standard reading.

In the end, even if Revelation should be translated differently or even be missing, the Trinity dogma doesn't stand on the basis of Scripture. It stands on the basis of revelation..

This is a Jew speaking too. It doesn't matter what you or I believe or want. That is what Christianity believes. You might believe differently. Well and good. But that is not how it historically happened.

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

Slimboyfat:

MARCIONISTS.
Heretical sect founded in A.D. 144 at Rome by Marcion and continuing in the West for 300 years, but in the East some centuries longer, especially outside the Byzantine Empire.--The Catholic Encyclopedia.

This is what I was talking about.

You all are uneducated.

"Marcionism was a 2nd century phenomenon"--Slimboyfat

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:

I'm sorry I posted a reply to you.

I forgot to use crayon and lots of pictures of people kissing your butt.

But even if I did that, knowing a POMI like you, you would have found a reason to argue back claiming how I was wrong and didn't answer right:

"Use more brown crayon on the nose. I like more brown on the nose," is what I was expecting...

Balaam's ass was smarter.

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.