Posts by Blotty

50

Are the teachings of JW—consistent?

by Fisherman in

i would belief so but if you can point something out, it can be discussed.. i don’t mean what jw taught in the past that they later realized was not correct and amended.

—unless you think and can show something like that is relevant.. i’ve spoken to a lot of believers from different religions.

i don’t want to bash any religion here under this topic but their beliefs are inconsistent and their reasons are sophistry and made up and grounded on circular reasoning.

Blotty

"Consistant" - an interesting word.. What religion is "consistent"? trinitarians cant even agree on how to explain the doctrine in a lot of cases.. "consistency" right there..
What about changing views? because someone reads something that changes their mind on a teaching or fact, does that make them inconsistent? no because then we can apply this argument to every person who has changing views on a subject..
People who assume The Watchtower don't have a chance of getting anything right need to see a doctor.. its basically saying all other religions are right in every case (They are not) No religion has everything 100% correct, but I would say the watchtower has points on numerous cases. scholars themselves have proved this point.

1

Wallace's "The personality of The holy spirit"

by Blotty in

source: http://orcuttchristian.org/wallace_greek%20grammar%20and%20the%20personality%20of%20the%20holy%20spirit.pdfi assume this is a portion of one of his books considering the page numbers & all in all its quite good food-for-thought for both sides of the theological argument.

his honesty here is surprising considering he once cited countess' very flawed argument.

a very good article to read anyhow and unironically quite useful in teaching how greek antecedents work - something very important on occasion.not to "spoil" the article but here are some very "un- wallace" thoughts, considering his stance on the trinity:.

Blotty

Source: http://orcuttchristian.org/Wallace_Greek%20Grammar%20and%20the%20Personality%20of%20the%20Holy%20Spirit.pdf

I assume this is a portion of one of his books considering the page numbers & all in all its quite good food-for-thought for both sides of the theological argument. His honesty here is surprising considering he once cited Countess' very flawed argument. A very good article to read anyhow and unironically quite useful in teaching how Greek antecedents work - something very important on occasion.

not to "spoil" the article but here are some very "un- Wallace" thoughts, considering his stance on the trinity:

In John 16:8, the only explicit antecedent to e)kei=noj is o( para/klhtojin v. 7. The personal pronoun au)to/n in v. 7 also refers back to para/klhtoj. As Curt Steven Mayes (Pronominal Referents and the Personality of the Holy Spirit [Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980], 33) notes on this passage, "The fact that John often uses e)kei=noj as the equivalent of a personal pronoun (= he or they) may be significant for the Spirit's personality. But the question is, how is the masculine form in this passage to be explained? Is it meant to teach theology or agree with para/klhtoj? Surely the latter is a grammatically sound conclusion." Mayes's observation leads to a further interesting point: in 1 John, as R. Brown and others have repeatedly noted, the author consistently uses the pronoun e)kei=noj, to refer to Jesus (as opposed to God the Father). Now there are significant shifts (albeit subtle ones) in the terminology between the Gospel of John and 1 John, but I wonder if the common thread here is the concept of the ascended Christ as Spirit. If this were the case (and I admit it's an if), the author would tend toward the masculine, not because of a view of the Spirit's personality, but because of a view that the Spirit was identified somehow with the ascended, exalted Christ (who would naturally be thought of as masculine).
(page 100 - Footnote: 10)

"The first two passages, John 14:26 and 15:26, can be handled together. In both of them, pneu=ma is appositional to a masculine noun, rather than the subject of the verb. The gender of e)kei=noj thus has nothing to do with the natural gender of pneu=ma. The antecedent of e)kei=noj, in each case, is para/klhtoj, not pneu=ma."
(page: 104 - Last paragraph)

"the masculine demonstrative pronoun, e)kei=noj, stands in relation to o( para/klhtoj, not to to_ pneu=ma. In 14:26, the noun clause—"the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name"—is in apposition to o( para/klhtoj. How do we know that to_ pneu=ma is the appositive rather than o( para/klhtoj? Because it follows o( para/klhtoj. (25)"
(page 107 - see also footnote 25 & 26)

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Blotty

Punk of nice (& Jeffro)

consider this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Christ_myth_theory

"The Jesus character, didn't leave any writings." - very weak argument as many bible characters didn't leave any writings..

"Then you have to prove God exists." - admittedly I have very few ways to do that... Bible doesn't really touch on the subject as in those days people were far more religious, even look 100 years ago..

that's all ill say on the subject :)

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Blotty

I have seen arguments surrounding Jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument The evidence for it remains very weak. (Bible quotes are from the NWT but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) This following version of it is a good example.

"The Bible indicates that all [persons] of The trinity was involved in Jesus’ resurrection. Galatians[1:1] says that the Father raised Jesus from the dead. 1 Peter 3:18 says that the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (see also Romans, and note that Romans 8:11 clearly says that God will resurrect believers “through His Spirit”). And in John 2:19 Jesus predicts that He will raise Himself from the dead (see John 10:18). So, when we answer the question of who resurrected Jesus, we say 'God' did."

once again I'm going to clarify I may be wrong in some areas linguistically.

Word Pictures in the New Testament - A. T. Robertson : “Recall John 2:19 where Jesus said: ‘And in three days I will raise it up.’ He did not mean that he will raise himself from the dead independently of the Father as the active agent (Rom. 8:11).”

(https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/eng/rwp/john-10.html - under verse 18)

The dead also are "conscience" of nothing at all (Ecclesiastes 9:5) - worth taking into account.

John 5:19, John 5:30 - also worth noting

Jesus' "dual nature" theory can be disputed by a verse in Revelation where he is a spirit (So has his "divine" nature) yet is talking about being dead.. (Rev 1:17) - Which "nature" is he using here? Human or divine?

some take 1 Peter 3:18 as meaning the Holy Spirit - however this is erroneous purely based on the next verse, "in which" (Biblehub meaning) is a referral back to the word "spirit" - Jesus “says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’” ... “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world.” (John 8:22, 23, NWT) - proving that flesh cannot enter heaven only spirit beings can. - which is where Jesus ascended. Jesus was made "spirit" or resurrected "in the spirit" (in spiritual form)

From my understanding there are 2 possible ways to understand Romans 8:11

1. God raised Jesus

2. The spirit raised Jesus

(I'm confusing myself trying to explain this myself)

Greek nouns must have the same number (,case?) and gender to which they refer back too.

"Spirit" is in the neuter gender therefore the later "ho" (The one , He who - NIV) cannot refer back to the Spirit but rather must refer back to God (in verse 3) and the earlier instance of God (verse 7, genitive) for the genitive "tou" (of him, NIV) in verse 11 none of which refer to the Spirit itself (both are masculine not neuter). as the "source" of the resurrection, We know this because of the preposition "dia" (similar, John 1:3 / Col 1:15)

The spirit is also said to come from the Father (John 15:26) Not just "From God" * (see Footnote) - This seems to be conveniently skipped over. (S)

John 10:18 says nothing about this subject... not sure why its in there. But it once again credits the resurrection to the Father (indirectly) The Father "gave" Jesus authority to receive his life back again.

The Father is the main one credited for Jesus' resurrection.

The following is a total of scriptures and the one credited for the resurrection:

Son: 1

Spirit: 1 (likely missed some)

Father: 16+ (about 6 explicitly say "The Father")

Acts 2:24; 3:15; Rom 4:24; 6:4; 8:11; 1Co 6:14; 2Co 4:14; Gal 1:1; Eph

1:17, 19-20; Col 2:12; 1Th 1:9,10; 1Pe 1:21.* (**)

(If anyone can give me a total list, that would be appreciated)

So from what I understand is The Father used his (holy) spirit to raise Jesus from the dead as a lifegiving spirit (1 Cor 15:45)

The bible is well known to add details "later", when it is assumed people understood without the completed thought. (Ellipsis)

another thing to keep in mind is Jesus' words at John 13:16, NWT

“. . .Most truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. . .”

most bibles echo the same sort of thing.. and the Father was going to send the holy spirit (Which later is also declared to be spoken in comparisons (or illustrations, parables))

Footnotes:

https://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/11/ru-jesus-raised-himself.html

* What trinitarians (and I sometimes) miss a lot of the time is when "God" is stated the writer means "God The Father" Paul sometimes uses "God" but evidently means "God the Father"

(S) The holy spirit is never explicitly referred to as "ho theos"

11

Two Translators Who Restored God’s Name to the NT

by Wonderment in

one of the first prayers that many people learn is the lord’s prayer, which jesus taught his followers.

this prayer is found in what is commonly called the new testament.

the prayer begins: “our father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified [or hallowed].” (matthew 6:9) yet, god’s name, rendered in english as “jehovah” or sometimes “yahweh,” is rarely found in english translations of the new testament.

Blotty

Greg Stafford also has an interesting article on this subject in his 2nd and 3rd editions of JWD

Thanks tho Wonderment

28

Jesus as 'The mighty + almighty God'

by JW Answers in

jehovah's witnesses refuse to believe that jesus is the almighty god.

they would state that jesus is 'mighty', but not almighty.. below is a 30 minute video proving from the word of god that the lord jesus christ is both mighty and almighty, separate from the father but equal too.. the verses used from scripture show without a doubt that christ is mighty (isaiah 9:6) and almighty (rev 1:7-8)..

Blotty

Should take a look at the LXX rendering of Isaiah 9:6 - does it say "Mighty God"? I think you'll find it says something very different.

6

Something that bothers me personally

by Blotty in

(i apologise if this is the wrong section for this - its the one i think suits best)this may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, which i will list as questions in the near future)i recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - i find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. they wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.

i.e on the divine name, i listed scholars such as george howard - i got the answer "try a real scholar"or another example i cited beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "he doesn't teach greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)once again i apologise if this is wasting anyone's time.

Blotty

(I apologise if this is the wrong section for this - Its the one I think suits best)
This may sound really cliché (it does in my opinion) and a first world thing, but it bothers me someone can be like this and spout these "illogical" arguments (among others, Which I will list as questions in the near future)

I recently (as of 21/11/22) finished up a conversation with someone on a few things - I find one of their "implications" slightly concerning.. They wouldn't accept "evidence" from scholars who seemingly didn't agree with their standpoint which is interesting.
I.E on the divine name, I listed scholars such as George Howard - I got the answer "try a real scholar"
or another example I cited Beduhn as (in my opinion) he is easy to understand but then got told "He doesn't teach Greek at a university so his opinion is not valid" - scholars may not cite Beduhn, but from looking at other factors he really gets nothing wrong (linguistically)

Once again I apologise if this is wasting anyone's time

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

Smiddy..
not too be rude but sometimes its worth taking a look from someone else's perspective, now granted I'm not sure either how you would come to that conclusion, but then again I don't know how some people come to the conclusion raised in my second question either..
My running theory would be either a misunderstanding OR Kaleb has only seen "pro" (or neutral, which can come off "pro") JW posts on this website (somehow)

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

Kaleb said" I failed to note that this was a pro-Jehovah's Witness, pro-New World Translation site/thread."
some like the NWT, others on this site don't... This website is not pro JW in the least.. some are some aren't.. its a matter of opinion really

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

Blotty

Welcome Kaleb!

Slimboy said "Does modern Hebrew even have an agreed pronunciation for the divine name?"

I suppose another question is does Hebrew still omit vowels?

I just realised how messy and convoluted this post is.. I do apologise

Kaleb said "The oldest copies of the LXX don't have the Divine Name."
Interesting (again from my very limited research, I'm in no position to debate this topic, hence the question)
- I have seen online in multiple places that the name does appear in some versions of the LXX dated to the 2nd (or 3rd century)
The rest I cannot debate you on as I haven't done enough research, someone more equipped can do that..
tbh I am inclined to accept the JW evidence based on the name, but BOTH sides make good points - The most common reason, (thats not said, but quite obvious) is that if the divine name in not in the NT, it would make it far easier to establish the trinity..
(Im neutral on this subject, even though that may come off as leaning towards the JW)