Posts by Saename

20

Paul did not belittle women

by Doug Mason in

i note the recent post that quoted 1 timothy 2:11-12 and colossians 1:23 which place women at a level that is lower to men.

the poster accused paul of this mysoginy, but that is not correct.. 1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus, colossians, ephesians and hebrews were written after paul's death.. paul was not a mysoginist; he made full use of women in leadership roles.

he wrote that in god's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one in god's sight.. doug.

Saename

LisaRose - What difference does it make who wrote those passages? It's still in the bible, allowed to be in the bible by God, if you believe the bible is inspired. Those words have been used for centuries to dominate and subjugate women, all in the name of God, and are still being used to this day by backwards religions like the JWs.

Right. To those of us who study the NT only from the historical perspective it's of great importance. (It's funny, but there are actually atheists who are interested in early Christianity for purely historical reasons. You'd think only Christians would be interested in these things, huh...) Nonetheless, whenever I debate Christians on these topics, I definitely use those misogynistic passages (and otherwise primitive verses) to criticise the allegedly divinely inspired Bible. It's only when I'm doing my historical studies that it becomes significant that Paul wasn't a misogynist. It's also fascinating because of how later Christians argued the role of women in Christianity. The "feminist" side used Paul's writings as much as the misogynistic side did. It's quite fascinating if one likes history.

But anyway, I agree with you that it's rather inconsequential when it comes to whether the Bible is divinely inspired.

20

Paul did not belittle women

by Doug Mason in

i note the recent post that quoted 1 timothy 2:11-12 and colossians 1:23 which place women at a level that is lower to men.

the poster accused paul of this mysoginy, but that is not correct.. 1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus, colossians, ephesians and hebrews were written after paul's death.. paul was not a mysoginist; he made full use of women in leadership roles.

he wrote that in god's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one in god's sight.. doug.

Saename

waton, what are you saying exactly? That women should be below men because of biology, and because it has served the human race "well"?

How do you know how it would have served the human race if women were equal to men from the very beginning? You don't know, so I don't think you can claim that the role of women has served us "well."

9

Evolution is a Fact Series Index So Far.

by cofty in

i will resume this series soon.. #1 protein functional redundancy comparing the sequences of amino acids in ubiquitous proteins confirms the relationship between all living things..

#2 dna functional redundancy comparison of the dna that codes for the amino acids of ubiquitous proteins predicts the tree of life with an astonishing degree of accuracy..

#3 ervs endogenous retroviruses that infected our ancestors are found in the same place of the genome of our closest primate cousins..

Saename

Holy crap! I didn't even know you were writing a series about evolution!

Bookmarked. Definitely bookmarked.

20

Paul did not belittle women

by Doug Mason in

i note the recent post that quoted 1 timothy 2:11-12 and colossians 1:23 which place women at a level that is lower to men.

the poster accused paul of this mysoginy, but that is not correct.. 1 timothy, 2 timothy, titus, colossians, ephesians and hebrews were written after paul's death.. paul was not a mysoginist; he made full use of women in leadership roles.

he wrote that in god's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one in god's sight.. doug.

Saename

slimboyfat - Was 1 Cor 11:3 written by Paul?

Some do indeed argue that this passage is an interpolation, but it's a minority view. Most likely it was written by Paul.

waton - was 1Cor. 14: 33-38 written by "Paul" ?

That (1 Cor. 14.34–35) is an interpolation. Firstly, vv 34–35 tell women to be silent, but that was not Paul's position. He, in his epistle to the Romans, names a female minister in Cenchreae (Phoebe—Rom. 16.1) and a female apostle in Rome (Junia—Rom. 16.7). Additionally, he already mentions in the very same epistle—1 Cor. 11.5—that women can indeed speak up in church (and prophesy) but need to wear head-covering.

Secondly, this passage about women disrupts the flow of the chapter. Before vv 34–35, Paul is talking about prophecy, and indeed, he also talks about prophecy even after these two verses. This passage about women simply appears out of nowhere. Hence, it's a majority view that this is an interpolation.

Doug Mason - Paul was not a mysoginist; he made full use of women in leadership roles. He wrote that in God's sight there is neither male nor female, for all are one in God's sight.

Agreed. One can criticise Christians who claim that the New Testament itself is divinely inspired while it contains misogynistic passages, but Paul himself can hardly be called a misogynist. He definitely wasn't as progressive as we are today (telling women to wear head-coverings in 1 Cor. 11.5 for instance), but calling him a misogynist is a bit too much.

3rdgen - If God inspired the Bible, why didn't he prevent confusion as to exactly what the message is. Why would he allow passages or books to be included that don't belong?

That's one of my objections against the Christian God as well. It doesn't make sense to me.

8

Jesus is Lord...as in Jehovah god...in Reference NWT

by NikL in

i wish i could say i found this but i saw it in a vid from watchtower examination.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7ertncbsk.

in it he points out that in the reference bible used by jws they admit that jesus and jehovah are the same thing.. so i looked it up online on jw.org.

yep it's there.. 1 peter 3:15. but sanctify the christ as lord* in your hearts,+ always ready to make a defense+ before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper+ and deep respect.*.

Saename

Yes, a textual variant is a different version of the same text. Most Bibles do not use the word "God" in 1 Peter 3.15 but the word "Christ." But then again, it should be noted that plenty of Bibles come from mainstream Christians who accept Jesus as God, so it makes no difference to them.

20

How can the WTS call themselves Christians when they have no Christian church?

by TTWSYF in

so was jesus a fool or a liar?

he said that his church would last all ages, didn't he?.

math 16:8and i say to thee: that thou art peter; and upon this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Saename

According to the Dictionary of Fairies,

Christianity – the ability to bend backwards

If you claim to be Christian, you're Christian, yo.

8

Jesus is Lord...as in Jehovah god...in Reference NWT

by NikL in

i wish i could say i found this but i saw it in a vid from watchtower examination.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7ertncbsk.

in it he points out that in the reference bible used by jws they admit that jesus and jehovah are the same thing.. so i looked it up online on jw.org.

yep it's there.. 1 peter 3:15. but sanctify the christ as lord* in your hearts,+ always ready to make a defense+ before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper+ and deep respect.*.

Saename

NikL, you are misinterpreting the footnote. The footnote does not say Jesus is Jehovah. The footnote is acknowledging that there is another textual variant of the Greek text which says, "but in your hearts sanctify God as Lord" as opposed to "but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord." Let me translate the two textual variants for you so it is easier:

TEXTUAL VARIANT #1

Κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος.

[...] moreover, sanctify in your hearts Christ [christos] as Lord. Always be ready to make a defense to anyone who is asking you for an account concerning the hope that is in you.

This textual variant is talking about Christ. It's clear because it contains the word christos. It calls Christ "Lord."

TEXTUAL VARIANT #2

Κύριον δὲ τὸν Θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, μετά πραΰτητος καί φόβου

[...] moreover, sanctify in your hearts God [theon] as Lord. Always be ready to make a defense with gentleness and fear to anyone who is asking you for an account concerning the hope that is in you.

This textual variant is not talking about Christ. It does not contain the word christos; it contains the word theon, and as such, it refers to Yahweh. It says, "sanctify in your hearts God as Lord."

So this footnote...

“The Christ as Lord,” אABC; TR, “the Lord God”; J7,8,11-14,16,17,24, “Jehovah God.”

...means that there is one textual variant which reads, "Christ as Lord," and there is also a second textual variant which reads, "God as Lord." The footnote does not equate Jehovah God to Christ. It is merely acknowledging that there are two different textual variants—one refers to Christ, and the other to God.

8

Jesus is Lord...as in Jehovah god...in Reference NWT

by NikL in

i wish i could say i found this but i saw it in a vid from watchtower examination.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7ertncbsk.

in it he points out that in the reference bible used by jws they admit that jesus and jehovah are the same thing.. so i looked it up online on jw.org.

yep it's there.. 1 peter 3:15. but sanctify the christ as lord* in your hearts,+ always ready to make a defense+ before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper+ and deep respect.*.

Saename

It's because of the difference in the Greek texts. There are two main variations:

Κύριον (kyrion meaning Lord) δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν (christon meaning Christ) ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος,

Κύριον (kyrion meaning Lord) δὲ τὸν Θεὸν (theon meaning God) ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν· ἕτοιμοι δὲ ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος, μετά πραΰτητος καί φόβου

The first one contains two titles "Κύριον" and "Χριστὸν" which mean Lord Christ.

The second one contains two titles "Κύριον" and "Θεὸν" which together mean Lord God. This one also doesn't have the word "Χριστὸν".

Whether you translate the verse as "Lord Christ" (or Christ as Lord) or "Lord God" depends on which Greek text you're using. NRSV uses the first variation and therefore translates to "Christ as Lord.

Edit: This is to say that when the JW Bible with references has "Jehovah God" in the footnote, it does not refer to Jesus.

49

Sisters as Ministerial Servants?

by Spoletta in

my wife has been trying to convince me that the organization is hinting at the possibility of making some older sisters ministerial servants.

she is awake to a lot of the false doctrines, but is still clinging to the hope that the org may become more progressive in the future.

anyone else pick up on this?

Saename

pale.emperor - So just to be safe and not to upset the toddler in the sky that gets very upset for no big reason she had to cover her head.

Toddler in the sky! Ha! It really feels that way!

MS who is fresh out of high school yet cant fathom how to work a simple sound desk (its only a laptop with mp3s on connected to volume knobs for crying out loud - have a go!)

I'd blame the elders here. They don't teach those MSs anything—except for how to preach and how long...

Richard Oliver - You would also have to make the same claim and criticism about many other religions.

And there he is! This WT sympathizer!

No, this topic is about Jehovah's Witnesses and their offensive attitude towards women. It is not about Catholicism, Protestantism, or any other denomination of Christianity. If someone wants to criticise other religions, they are free to do so, but this topic doesn't have to mention other religions. Fair criticism and impartiality are not about mentioning every single Christian denomination when we criticise JWs. We wouldn't have room for it. There are over 1,000 Christian denominations. Just like when someone criticises racism, they don't have to criticise sexism, homophobia, slavery, and every single other social issue in the same topic. That would be nonsensical.

Having that said, you should remember that members on this board do criticise other Christian denominations as well. There aren't that many of those, but it's for a simple reason: this board focuses on Jehovah's Witnesses. It is not partiality or unfair criticism. It's simple common sense. We don't have the time to criticise 1,000 Christian denominations. Other people on other boards are already doing it. One forum for one denomination. It's simple as that.

But I don't think your JW brain is capable of comprehending such a complicated topic.

22

How Do JWs Reconcile Contradictions Between Mt. and Lk. and Their Birth Stories?

by Saename in

does anybody know how jehovah's witnesses reconcile the contradictions between the stories of jesus' birth as found in matthew and luke?

when i was a jehovah's witness, i wasn't even aware of this contradiction; i simply thought that all of it happen—namely that there was a census (luke 2) and the slaughter of the innocents (matthew 2) simultaneously.

but at the time i didn't know that the census took place in 6 ce and that herod the great died in 4 bce, thus placing those birth stories 10 years apart in time.

Saename

StephaneLaliberte - Census would not require man to go back to town where they were born. [...] Also, the purpose of the census was for taxes. How could the tax man evaluate the belongings of someone when they are not at home, without their possessions?

Ancient history 101.

Half banana - As far as I am aware (and I'm happy to be corrected) there was never a census in the Roman world at that time, before and after perhaps. The Romans kept very good records and there is none.

The census did happen in 6 CE. It's just that it was a local census—not a census that was carried out "in the whole world" as the Bible tells it. Quirinius became (legate) governor of Syria, and at the same time also Judea became a Roman province. It was a Roman custom to carry out a census in a new territory for tax purposes (assessment of the citizens' properties and their worth) to see how much money they can get from this new territory. Josephus mentions the census in Antiquities Book XVIII somewhere in chapter I (and it's hard to see how he would have a Christian agenda to pursue.)

These include the Mithraic legends of Persian origin, based on ancient astrological lore of the birth of the Son of God in the East who were visited by the three wise men (magi or persian astrologers).

Nope. That's a myth that originates from Gerald Massey's book from 1880s (if I were to place a bet—I'm not completely sure, but his book definitely focused on the false connection between Jesus and Horus, so it's not hard to see how he could also give rise to this false connection.) New Atheists on the Internet keep spreading this nonsense for some reason. They don't bother to check the facts. Mithra (the Persian god) didn't have any magi visit him. Mithras (the Roman god) didn't either. (For some other reason, those Internet naive "freethinking" individuals keep confusing the two gods even though they have nothing to do with each other.)

Luke's account for example recalls (for a Roman audience) the legend of Romulus and Remus where their births were subject to a Herodian type of decree to slaughter all of the new-borns to deny the heroes a life.

Another myth. Amulius wanted to have Romulus and Remus tossed into the Tiber after either killing Illa (otherwise known as Rea Silvia) or hiding her in a dungeon for the rest of her life. There was no decree because Amulius' guards already had Illa and her twin children. If anything, there's a similarity between Romulus and Remus, and Moses because the twins were put in a basket and then tossed into the river, only to be carried away by the waters. It's similar to Moses' birth, but not Luke's Jesus'.

Anyway, Half banana, I must point out that you are confusing the reason as to why I asked this question. I am not interested in the Watchtower's apologetics. I never find it convincing. I am an agnostic atheist in regards to the belief in god in general, and when it comes to the Christian God, I am a strong atheist. The point of me asking this question on this forum was to find out how Jehovah's Witnesses reconcile the gospels just in case I would debate this point with a Jehovah's Witness in indefinite future. So I know the gospels are making up the story of Jesus' virgin birth to fit their beliefs about the Davidic messiah.

scratchme1010 - I wonder if there's a reason for looking at that particular discrepancy in the bible as opposed to the many others?

Right. No specific reason. Just somehow this question popped into my head, and I have a curious mind.