Sheep and Goats

Category: Trinity

  • Isaiah 33:6: The Stability of Your Times

    “He is the stability of your times; An abundance of salvation, wisdom, knowledge, and the fear of Jehovah —This is his treasure.” (Isaiah 33:6)

    This verse would make a good year text too, given how unstable life is. Maybe one unfine year it will be one. It includes an emphasis Bible reading, study, and meditation, since the goods don’t come through osmosis. Though, to some extent they do, if you immerse yourself in the atmosphere. And it’s a “treasure” to get “wisdom.” Though “knowledge” may be gained through science, it doesn’t deliver much on the “wisdom” front. Moreover, on the “salvation” front, if anything, it tells us that our goose is cooked.

    As to stability, a circuit overseer used to tell how he would get carsick as a boy. This resonates with me because I used to get carsick as a boy also. Our family’s solution was to stick me in the passenger seat where it was less likely to happen, relegating mom to the back seat with my two younger siblings. I grew up thinking that was just the way it was with families, and was surprised to ride with friends whose moms were doing it wrong, sitting up front.

    The circuit overseer never displaced his mom as a boy. His directive, given him in the back seat, was: “Look as far off into the distance as you can. Do not shift that gaze.” It’s the one thing that does not change that would save him. It was a good dry run for how he would later be looking to God in times of instability—his nature and principles do not change, amidst a chaotic earthly backdrop in which everything changes.

    The times today, they are unstable. Then, it was threat of the encroaching Assyrians. Today, many threats encroach, often more vague with unsure consequences. “The Future’s So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades” became a hit song in the 80s. They sing it at graduations, even though the songwriters said the shades and brightness were an allusion to how nuclear war might end it all. 

    And how fretful should people be, for another example, that 75% of insects (by biomass) have dissappered in the last 30 years? This, according to a 2017 German study, and it mirrors findings in birdlife. Should that be a cause for alarm or should it be dismissed as one of those things? Anyone my age knew this and often said it, due to the bug splatter you used to have to clear off your summer windshields but no longer do. This was “anecdotal,” however, and the great thinkers were dubious of it without measurements. One might think they could just ask the geezers, all of whom would answer the same, that you’d be washing bug guts off your windshield at length after a summer’s night drive, but such is not the ways of science.

    On the other hand, they keep churning out the goods at Costco. As I dine on my hot dog and soda, still one dollar and fifty cents (though I wouldn’t want to subsist on them), satiated customers with fully loaded carts stream out of the store as though on a conveyor belt, an incredible feat.

    The 33rd chapter explores how Israel would fare in the face of the Assyrian threat and how those looking to God would escape. The climax is the last verse: 

    “And no resident will say: “I am sick.” The people dwelling in the land will be pardoned for their error.” (33:24)

    Whatever the then-ramifications, whenever in the Bible one reads of those “pardoned for their error,” one thinks of the Great Pardoner. Jesus even connected being pardoned with being free of sickness when he told the paralyzed man his sins were forgiven. Religious honchos huffed over just who he thought he was, a man who could forgive sins.  He proved the point by telling the man to pick up his mat and walk. 

    (“When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic: “Child, your sins are forgiven.”  Now some of the scribes were there, sitting and reasoning in their hearts: “Why is this man talking this way? He is blaspheming. Who can forgive sins except one, God?”  But immediately Jesus discerned by his spirit that they were reasoning that way among themselves, so he said to them: “Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts?  Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and pick up your stretcher and walk’? But in order for you to know that the Son of man has authority to forgive sins on earth—” he said to the paralytic: “I say to you, Get up, pick up your stretcher, and go to your home.” At that he got up and immediately picked up his stretcher and walked out in front of them all.“ — Mark 2:5-12)

    He is the Son of God, given authority even to forgive sins. Likely foreshadowed at Isaiah 33:17–“Your eyes will behold a king in his splendor,” as it begins to become apparent just God will save in modern times. It’s by means of this Son appointed king. Sometimes this dawns on people gradually. Sometimes it hits like a thunderbolt, and may account for Thomas’s exclamation: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20;28) a revelation of the Lord and a praise of the God who reveals him. 

    I should have a nickel for everyone who has declared that Thomas is equating the two. It’s a valid view of that verse alone, and may even be the first interpretation that comes to mind, but it doesn’t fit the overall picture. Two things are mentioned, so that means they are the same? Not to trivialize the point, but I stopped at Dunkin the other day and ordered a coffee and donut. The clerk handed me two separate items. They may commonly go together, nobody would ever say that they are the same.

    Any reason that Thomas could not be exclaiming ‘My Lord!’ having just identified him, and then equally marveling at ‘my God’ who brings it about? It would fit 33:22 of Isaiah: 

    “For Jehovah is our Judge, Jehovah is our Lawgiver, Jehovah is our King; He is the One who will save us.” With the revealing of his Son, we see just how he will accomplish those things with people. You praise the Son, but you praise the Father even more.

    “The Father is greater than the Son,” says John 14:28. It’s no more complicated than that. It is a fact, though, that when my friend John Cuggan displayed the booklet ‘The Word: Who is He According to John?’ at this workplace, a booklet that left a sizable gap below the title, his born-again co-workers filled the space with his last name: ‘The Word: Who Was He, According to John Cuggan?’

    ***

    The model prayer Jesus gave, often dubbed ‘The Lord’s Prayer,’ serves well as an updated formula for stability, just like 33:6 but with more specifics. You don’t just chant out The Lord’s Prayer verbatim. It’s not like a good luck charm that you say over and over. Said Jesus:

    “When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do,for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words. So do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need even before you ask him.” (Matthew 6:7-8)

    On the other hand, it’s not a bad outline, because it shows priorities:

    “You must pray, then, this way:“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified. Let your Kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also on earth. Give us today our bread for this day; and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.” (7:9-13)

    Sanctification of God’s name and the Kingdom take top billing, for there is where the real answers are. He’s got it all together in heaven, no doubt, but only when “the Kingdom comes” dies his “will” take place “also upon earth.” So that takes first place. 

    Drop down afterward to the personal things. To the extent possible, focus on the “bread for this day,” and not matters many years out (or regrets of things many years ago). We are beings that plan ahead, of course, but even so, the mental health people call it “living in the present” that grounds a person. Do it to the extent you can.

    And you’d better not be one always pointing the finger at others. If we would ask the Father to “forgive us our debts,” we must also be ones who “have forgiven our debtors.”

    The last item, to not be brought “into temptation” but be shielded from “the wicked one”—it probably goes without saying that you scope out scenarios ahead of time to avoid trouble. This counsel probably would have helped the many people drawn by Epstein’s reputation for wild parties, many without knowledge of just what a slimeball he turned out to be. Now, they are all being tarred by whoever doesn’t like them, but they would have been spared had they smelled a rat from afar and steered clear of any whiff of what is raucous. What well-connected person doesn’t salivate over being invited to a rich person’s wild party? But they should have kept their distance. It now appears the fellows modus operendi, likely with spy backing, was to lure in powerful people, compromise them somehow, and hold it over their heads forever. Just applying the Lord’s Prayer would have saved them. At time of writing, everyone who went there is officially innocent of wrongdoing, leading to the absurd conclusion that Epstein’s girlfriend is in jail for sex trafficking to no one.

    Three Dog Night would have saved them, too. “Mama told me not to come. That ain’t the way to have fun, son.”

    Did they have mamas that didn’t love them? Twice the devil calls the songwriter’s name and once Congress (as though it is the same) calls it. Each time the refrain is: “Who do you think you’re fooling?” He is invulnerable because “my mama loves me. She loves me like a rock.”

    You may not say it verbatim, but it the prayer is a helpful outline to keep priorities straight. It’s stabilizing, same as 33:6.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Who is Michael?

    Who would have thought that Jehovah’s Witnesses were not alone in identifying the archangel Michael with Jesus? That the idea is also found in the writings of Martin Luther and John Calvin? That a host of other theologians have said it too? It was news to me.

    Really enjoyed this exhaustive article. Were it not for the Michael/Christ identification running afoul of trinitarian concerns, I think few would care about how JWs define this. It would just be a relatively insignificant quirk of the faith. That’s why I was surprised to see Luther, Calvin and others also make the connection and am not quite sure how they did so without arousing those concerns. It must be they have changed over time?

    On higher criticism, I noted separately how Luke Thomas Johnson likened it to a sort of Trojan Horse. Under the historical-critical method, he said, the theologian cannot talk about miracles as Jesus’ resurrection or virgin birth, therefore that restraint has a way of becoming an implied denial.

     

    See link here to chapter 6, by  G. Chryssides 

     

    https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph-detail?docid=b-9781350302716&pdfid=9781350302716.0012.pdf&tocid=b-9781350302716-chapter6

     

    of the book:

    The Archangel Michael Beyond Orthodoxies: History, Politics and Popular Culture

     

    which is found: https://www.bloomsburycollections.com/monograph?docid=b-9781350302716

     

     

     

     

  • John 1:1 and how to translate where there is no indefinite [a] article.

    A trinitarian modification of Scripture is found at John 1:1. By far, most translations today say that “the Word was God” at that location.

    However, Dr. Jason Beduhn writes, in the book ‘Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Versions of the New Testament,’ that:

    “Grammatically, John 1: 1 is not a difficult verse to translate. It follows familiar, ordinary structures of Greek expression. A lexical (“interlinear”) translation of the controversial clause would read: “And a god was the Word.” A minimal literal (“formal equivalence”) translation would rearrange the word order to match proper English expression: “And the word was a god.”

    “The preponderance of evidence, \[1\] from Greek Grammar, \[2\] from literary context, and \[3\] from cultural environment, supports this translation, of which “the Word was divine” would be a slightly more polished variant carrying the same basic meaning. Both of these renderings are superior to the traditional translation which goes against these three key factors that guide accurate translation.”

    The Koine Greek language has the definite article (the) but not the indefinite article (a). What to do, then, when there is not an indefinite article before the object (god) of John 1:1c? There can’t be one because one does not exist. The same question arises with regard to Latin Vulgate (late 4^(th) century) or Syriac/Peshitta (2^(nd) to 5^(th) centuries), other early translations of the Greek New Testament. Neither has an indefinite article.

    But, in the early third century CE, the Greek NT was translated into a language that does have an indefinite article, the Sahidic Coptic language. How does that language with an indefinite article handle John 1:1c? It renders that final phrase: "the Word was a god."

    That this rendering is correct is suggested by Acts 28:6, where Paul shakes off a snake. The islanders all expect him to swell up and die. When he doesn’t, they begin saying he “was a god.”

    There is no ‘a’ in the Koine Greek, it being the indefinite article. The sentence construction, the grammar, as well as common sense, here demands one be inserted. The grammar runs parallel to John 1:1. However, John 1:1 is usually translated ‘God.’ Acts 28:6 is always translated ‘a god.’ It is not grammatic rules that accounts for the different treatment. It is theology.

    The Sahidic Coptic language is a critical thinker’s dream come true. With an indefinite article that Greek, Latin, and Syriac do not have, the Coptic allows for no ambiguity. It says the Word was a god.

    As Beduhn writes, “divine” works, too. Surely the Son of God is divine, even if not God himself. However, a developing trinity dogma was then taking form to run rigorous translating off the road. It is not grammar that demands “the Word was God.” It is theology. Grammar says it is "a god."

    ***

    Enter one Ernest Cadman Colwell, a biblical scholar, textual critic, and academic, who served as a professor of New Testament and president of the University of Chicago (1945–1951), specializing in Greek manuscripts and early Christian texts. He proposed what has come to be known as “Colwell’s rule,” that allows for scooting around the ordinary rules of grammar that Beduhn cites and that the Coptic illustrates. Apparently, nobody knew anything about such a “rule” before he proposed it less that 100 years ago. His profession suggests he concocted it solely to advance and protect a trinity doctrine, and that if you didn’t already believe that the Word was God, you would never translate it that way.

    At most, per this recent rule, John 1:1 can coexist with a trinity doctrine. In no way can it serve as a fundamental underpinning of it, which is how trinitarians usually play it, as though their ultimate trump card.

    ******  The bookstore

     

  • Proverbs 8:22-31: Wisdom Personified as the Son, or Just Wisdom?

    Toward the end of a nine-chapter Proverbs treatment of wisdom, is a short passage which many think is  wisdom personified as Jesus:

    “Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago.From ancient times I was installed, From the start, from times earlier than the earth.When there were no deep waters, I was brought forth, When there were no springs overflowing with water.Before the mountains were set in place, Before the hills, I was brought forth,When he had not yet made the earth and its fields Or the first clods of earth’s soil.When he prepared the heavens, I was there; When he marked out the horizon on the surface of the waters,When he established the clouds above, When he founded the fountains of the deep,When he set a decree for the sea That its waters should not pass beyond his order, When he established the foundations of the earth,Then I was beside him as a master worker.  I was the one he was especially fond of day by day; I rejoiced before him all the time;I rejoiced over his habitable earth, And I was especially fond of the sons of men. (Proverbs 8:22-31)

     If it is Jesus, it is good that he was “especially fond of the sons of men.” That’s far better than a Jesus who wants to make us trouble. At any rate, you can’t quite picture the abstract quality “wisdom” in itself as being fond of anything in particular. It has to be personified in order to be “fond.” So, why not with the Son? Why not putting him alongside God as his “master worker” for all aspects of creation, rejoicing with him as each aspect comes into being?

    Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE) thought the passage referred to the Son, as evidenced by his “Dialogue with Trypho.” So did Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), as written into his work “Against Heresies.” But those views ran afoul of later doctrine. Didn’t 8:22 (Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, The earliest of his achievements of long ago) show, if applied to Jesus, that the Christ was a created being, subordinate to God? Yes, it did, said guys like Arius (c. 250–336 CE), in harmony with Justin and Irenaeus. But a growing trinity movement would make Arius public enemy #1. Leaders of that movement, like Athanasius (c. 296–373 CE) banished the Proverbs 8 passage to just being Wisdom, as an eternal attribute of God, with nothing to do with the Son.

    What I believe is that those closest to the source are most likely the ones who got it right, rather than those who came along hundreds of years after.

     

    ******  The bookstore

  • An Obedient Heart or an Understanding Heart—Which Is It?

    “So grant your servant an obedient heart to judge your people,” Solomon asked in a dream, “to discern between good and bad, for who is able to judge this numerous people of yours?” (1 Kings 3:9)

    Imagine such a request—for an ‘obedient heart.’ From a king!—who normally isn’t concerned with obedience to anything or anyone.

    Furthermore, God equates this request for an obedient heart to ‘understanding:’

    “It was pleasing to Jehovah that Solomon had requested this. God then said to him: “Because you requested this and you did not request for yourself long life or riches or the death of your enemies, but you requested understanding to hear judicial cases, I will do what you asked. I will give you a wise and understanding heart, so that just as there has never been anyone like you before, there will never be anyone like you again. Furthermore, what you have not requested I will give you, both riches and glory, so that there will be no other king like you in your lifetime.” (vs 10-13)

    I was just getting ready to comment on this at the midweek meeting when I thought I’d check how other translations put it. We have a handful of them on our own app, some mainstays like King James and American Standard Versions, some eclectic ones like Rotherham and Byington, and a few permutations of our own New World Translation. But for sheer scope, I like Biblegateway.com. Enter your scripture, append “in all English translations” to the result, and you have a list of 54 translations to choose from. It is not “all English translations,” as they say. It is all they have. Rotherham and Byington aren’t there, nor is New World Translation. But it still is a lot. Let’s check how many render 1 Kings 3:9 as “obedient.”

    Whoa! None of them do! Well—just one, the Holman Christian Standard Bible. 53 of the 54 translations have something different!

    By far, the most frequent rendering is an ‘understanding heart’ that Solomon requested, as opposed to an ‘obedient heart.’ 31 of the 54 versions say ‘understanding,’ with two more saying, ‘a heart that understands’—almost the same thing. The next most common is ‘discerning.’ Some versions change the ‘heart’ to ‘mind,’ as though what Solomon wants is to be the smartest kid in class.

    So the New World has an ‘obedient’ rendering that only one other translation has! Did they just write it in? You know how our people like to lay it on with obedience. I was just entertaining the notion that the Witnesses got it wrong when I noticed a handful of versions that suggested they were on to something after all—maybe something others had missed.

    The New American Bible—Revised Edition, the one I employed as house Bible in I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why (because the New World Translation is there declared ‘extremist’) says ‘listening heart.’ The Names of God Bible says ‘heart that listens.’ Oh yeah? Listens to what? Or should it be who?

    Indicating it is the ‘who’ to be listened to, the Wycliffe Version reads: “Therefore thou shalt give to thy servant an heart able to be taught, that is, enlightened of thee . . . And the Message Translation, which is sometimes so paraphrased as to veer into ludicrousness, here is spot-on. Solomon requests a ‘god-listening heart,’ it says.

    So now I’m thinking that the brothers aren’t so daft after all, that they’re on to something that most miss and nobody but one says explicitly. Hmm. How to research this? Look up ‘obedience’ in the Insight book. There I find that the Hebrew word is ‘shama.’ Is 1 Kings 3:9 one of the places shama is used? The article doesn’t say.

    Look up ‘understanding’ in that same encyclopediac work. Nothing.

    Okay. Nothing remains than to hop on the great internet with the search terms, ‘1 Kings 9:3,’ ‘shama,’ and ‘obedient.’ This is a little risky because Witness apostates have peppered the internet with a gazillian tirades about how their former religion stinks to high heaven. But in this case, ‘obedient’ is the furthest thing from their minds, and nobody has bothered to weigh in on this particular verse. Instead an article by Daniel Hoffman is pulled up.

    “When Solomon prayed for wisdom,” he says, “surprisingly, he did not use the word “wisdom.” What he prayed for, according to the ESV, [Easy-to-Read Version] was “an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil”

    There is a Hebrew word for ‘wisdom.’ Solomon doesn’t use it! What word does he use? ‘Shama,’ the one that Insight on the Scriptures identifies as the root word of ‘obedience!’  Quickly the New World Translation has risen from ‘dog of the pack’ to ‘top dog!’

    It is not that ‘understanding’ is wrong as a rendering. It’s fine as far as it goes. But it doesn’t go very far. If it does not convey the idea that ‘understanding’ comes from listening to God rather that simply being innately smart it does its readers a great disservice. Here’s how Hoffman puts it:

    “So the ESV translation is not wrong. But I think maintaining the literal translation is better in this case. The more concrete “hear” reminds us that wisdom, discernment, or understanding, biblically conceived, is a matter first of all of hearing the word of the Lord. Wisdom in its biblical conception is not an abstract trait that some people just naturally have, but is a result of hearing the word of the Lord and digesting and embracing it.” (He says “hear” because shama has the connotation of hearing someone, in this case God.)

    Is it really necessary to go so far as the New World Translation goes (and the Holman Christian Standard Bible) and say ‘obedient.’ No, I don’t think it is. But it just may be the best choice of renderings. After all, what is the point of ‘hearing’ God if you blow off what he says as nothing? Disobedience is afoot today. It is like what was said to Ezekiel: “Look! You are to them like a romantic love song, sung with a beautiful voice and skillfully played on a stringed instrument. They will hear your words, but no one will act on them.” (Ezekiel 33:32)

    Ha! The words are a “romantic love song.” They are inspirational—the stuff of stirring song, moving poetry, rousing prose, but as to obeying them? No. And so Dee mentioned to me the other day how she had commented on someone’s ornate religious edifice he was carrying on about, that yes, people have built many beautiful things for God, “but I almost think it’s better when they find out what he wants and obey him instead.” That got her the fisheye from her recipient but I thought she hit the nail on the head. It’s not unlike what Samuel told Saul: “Look, to obey is better than sacrifice.”

    That being the case, that obedience is important to God and we live in a time of marked disobedience, and we strive to avoid “the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience,” (Eph 2:2) you can make a case that ‘obedient heart’ is the best rendering of all.

    This is not the first time I’ve spotted the New World Translation with a rendering that at first seems suspect but turns out to be superior. Ronald Sider, in his book ‘The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience’ grumbles that Galatians 5:13 literally reads, “be slaves to each other,” yet most popular translations dilute the verse to a more independence-savoring “serve one another in love”—a rendering promoting disobedience that he says contributes to the deplorable state of his own people, whose overall moral conduct is identical to that of the greater world whereas it is supposed to be a notch above. The New World Translation, however, holds to the original Greek, with “through love slave for one another.”

    I noted it here as well with Psalm 22:16, where the New World Translation stuck to the literal Hebrew whereas almost everyone else succumbed to an at least arguably fraudulent reading.

    If the New World ranks with the best translations in these three instances, why is it sometimes said that it is the worst? In almost all cases it is because it does not render certain verses in the formalistic, even if less rigorous, way that they must be rendered to support the trinity doctrine—and adherents to the trinity take offense. There is such a thing as letting beliefs dictate scholarship, whereas it ought to be the other way around.….

    028A3395-E560-4286-B720-827CABF8E208 

    Painting: ‘The Wisdom of Solomon”—James Tissot

    (1 Kings 3:9, which this post expounds on, was included in the recently assigned week’s Bible reading. Therefore this post will fill in for that week’s meeting notes.)

     

    ******  The bookstore

     

     

     

  • If You Occupy Yourself with Spreading the Gospel You Just Might be a Christian

    When Vladimir Putin said Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians too, “I don’t know why we persecute them,” Russian Witnesses were cautiously optimistic. They weren’t naive. They didn’t forget where they were. But when Darth Vader says, “I don’t know why we’re so mean to the Light Side,” you sort of think that maybe he will stop.

    Did the top brass of the Russian Orthodox Church pull him aside to say, “What is wrong with you, Vladimir? Get with it! They are not Christian at all!” It is pure speculation, but for whatever reason, nothing came of Putin’s words. In fact, it has been just the opposite; persecution of JWs has only increased.

    Would they dare talk back to him that way? They might. Countries that nurture a “house church” and suppress everyone else expect that church to be the spiritual equivalent of the military, a force to bind together the nation. The military top brass no doubt speaks freely before Putin, so why not the Church top brass?

    At any rate, a senior cleric, Metropolitan Hilarian, is adamant that no way are Jehovah’s Witnesses Christian. Crowing at the aftermath of the 2017 ban on the Witness organization, he said: “It's hard to deny that these cultists will remain and continue their activity… but at least they'll stop openly claiming to be a Christian faith, in other words, in the market place of existing Christian confessions this product will no longer be on display.”

    The reason that Putin did think Jehovah’s Witnesses were Christian, most likely, is that at the annual Kremlin picnic, his third cousin, with an interest in the Bible, bended his ear on things that Christians do. “Go, therefore, and make disciples,” Jesus said, as well as, “This good news of the kingdom will be declared in all the inhabited earth” at which point Putin reflected on who most visibly does this, openly approaching people, Bible in hand, right in their homes. It means Witnesses are Christian, he would have told himself.

    But this is plebeian thinking, the Church clerics convince him. He must not be such a donkey in this regard. He is one of the ruling elite and he must act it. He must not be taken in by the fact that JWs alone, as a lifelong course, take the Christian message directly to people wherever they happen to be. It’s a ruse. They’re really not Christian.

    They’ll have to correct BusinessInsider.com, too. Lamenting that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote, it nevertheless describes them as a “Christian denomination.” This identification as a Christian denomination is picked up by most secular sources.

    Maybe religionnews.com can straighten them out. “Scholars call out Putin and the ‘escalation’ of persecution against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia,” it announces on October 2, 2020. It is a thorough article. It included the assessment of the scholars, that they “are left with the impression that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia are being punished for their success in gaining new adherents, and because they are perceived as a ‘foreign’ religion.”

    Still, it cannot close the article without stating: “They are not recognized as Christian by Orthodox and other Christian traditions, primarily because they do not believe in the Trinity.”

    Ah—there is the sticking point! It is the Trinity. Lack of it is a deal-breaker. This is very strange because virtually all scholars will concede that the Trinity doctrine was 300 years in development and was cemented into place first only at the 325 CE council of Nicaea. It is not explicitly taught in the Bible. Nearly all verses said to support it, were they to be seen in any other context, would be instantly dismissed as figure-of-speech. When the impaled Jesus cries out, “My God, my God—why have you forsaken me?—What! has he forsaken himself? It makes no sense. Nonetheless, it has become the steamroller that flattens all before it.

    Again and again you get the sense that the ordinary people of common sense, barring only some indoctrinated religionists, accept in a heartbeat that Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christian because they most notably approach people with the Bible. Too, their stand of non-involvement in wars most notably dovetails with Jesus’ words that “by this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another,” and that “all who live by the sword will die by the sword.” People of common sense instantly recognize this.

    But the higher you climb in the religion food chain, the more you find ones who have educated themselves beyond this common sense. I wrote previously of how the aforementioned religionnews.com doesn’t even seem to have a category for Jehovah’s Witnesses, and furthermore opined that such a circumstance might be perfectly agreeable to the JW headquarters—on a list of “religions of the world,” they do not appear.

    It is reminiscent of Victor V Blackwell, a lawyer representing our people during the tumultuous World War II years. He writes of how he would point out for this or that small town judge that, per the scriptural definition, Witnesses enrolled in full time service of preaching and teach the Word were plainly ministers. However, those judges recognized as ministers only persons who “had a church” and “got paid.”

     

    See: I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses—Searching for the Why

     

     

     

  • Skirmish #873090 – Will the Real Greg Stafford Please Stand Up?

    “There has also been another book by Greg Stafford, who might no longer be a JW.”

    Who is this guy? Opposers have likened me to him. 

    “Perhaps his book is on Amazon.com, and the reviewers may have commented on who he is (was?).”

    You know, that’s not a bad idea. I went there. 

    He has a couple of books on ‘defending Jehovah’s Witnesses.’ I guess that I should applaud, because I claim to do the same, but I find books like these such yawners (granted, I have not read his) because they defend only in a doctrinal sense, whereas I like to believe that I defend in a more practical and strategic sense. These guys give the impression that they know the Bible and nothing else. First thing you know, their head has grown so big that they almost come to believe in themselves as the faithful and discreet slave—they have pointed the way and the supertanker organization doesn’t follow. Disgruntled, off they go as the True Light unheeded. In time, they are launching vicious attacks agains the hand that once fed them—the very place from which the learned the truth in the first place. (Wilma strikes me as one of them)

    It is a shame that you are such a blowhard, James, because I rather like complaint of being Gog and Magogged to death. Exactly. You know when there are things “too great for me.” So do I. You don’t think that from your Appalachian still you are going to be emanating cutting edge scholarship. You wait for someone else to say it, and then you ask yourself, ‘Does it hang together.?’ If only you would learn to put things on the shelf when you suspect they do not rather than go all insolent (brazen) online over it and denounce everyone not doing what you think they should. 

    Greg apparently devotes chapters to ‘disproving’ the Trinity. It is ridiculous. You can’t disprove it. The trick is to show that, since the doctrine defies common sense, the burden of proof is on their adherents to show that it is so. The default position favors the Witness. With very few exceptions, all ‘proof’ of the Trinity is based on taking literally certain passages which, if they were spotted anywhere else, would instantly be dismissed as figures of speech. I can picture these yo-yos reading of ‘crocodile tears’ and seizing upon it as proof that the writer is a crocodile. 

    There are other Greg Stanford books on Amazon, too. they are of subjects that could represent the real one having gone over to the dark side. Or maybe they are a relative. Dunno.

    I did contact him many years ago via email when people began to say of me that I sounded like another Greg Stanford. I asked who he was and he told me (then) that he was a Witness in good standing.

    2116E01B-655F-4E8C-81EC-69FDE1045467

    Photo by regard 1400

  • Most Church Doctrines Are Not Found in the Bible

    It is the attempt to read them in that causes people to throw up their hands in despair, sometimes even in disgust, of ever understanding it. To the extent that happens, it makes such doctrines very destructive.

    From time to time, this is acknowledged by some clergyman or other.  For example, Richard Lowell Bryant, a United Methodist minister, rained on ‘Trinity Sunday’ recently by declaring of the doctrine: We made it up, saying in part:

    “The truth is:  God was nowhere to be found when we made up the Trinity and turned it into a tool to isolate, annoy, and explain God’s expansive love in terms of dysfunctional family.”

    His brethren men and women of the cloth hastened to correct him. Especially did one Dr. Hunter, who says: “Several of my students sent me the article, knowing the central place the doctrine of the Trinity holds in the courses I teach at United Theological Seminary.” Dr. Hunter responds with a twelve-paragraph reproof to his fellow minister.

    Two things can be observed about his reply.

    1. It will barely be comprehensible to the person of common sense, and

    2. No appeal is made to scripture for support, a tacit admission that none is to be found there. After all, the New Testament is the origin, if not the blueprint, of Christianity. Is it not telling that he does not go there?

    He goes there only a little, to cite John 16 and Jesus’ statement therein that the helper will come along later and reveal all things. He appears to have in mind, per a previous paragraph, the decree of the Council of Nicaea, which took place 300 years after Christ, and in which the Doctor expresses confidence that it was directed by Holy Spirit. But as to the scriptures themselves teaching a triune God—zip. He doesn’t touch it.

    The Bible verses can be tortured for that meaning, of course, but tortured is what they must be. They involve taking literally numerous passages which, in any other context, would instantly be recognized as figure of speech. However, it does serve to complicate the obvious and thus serves to supply Dr. Hunter with a teaching career.

    Not that Dr. Hunter is a bad man. No, he possibly is a very good man. But he is likely a product of what Jesus spoke of long ago to religious leaders of his day: “Woe to you who are versed in the Law, because you took away the key of knowledge. You yourselves did not go in, and you hinder those going in!”

    Since they took the key away, later generations don’t necessarily know that there is a key.

  • No Scrapping on My Watch

    I don't do the following often, for it is a little mean. I wouldn't do it just on account of a differing point of view. I reserve it for someone obnoxious and condescending from the fundamentalist religious world, someone trying to denigrate the work Witnesses do, someone saying dismissively: "No thanks. I'm Christian." As though they own the word.
     
    I reply that only a Christian would do the work I am doing, adding "frankly, I'm a little surprised you're not doing it yourself." Always it vanquishes the smug smile.
     
    However, one does not stop there, upon seeing that the blow has landed. Immediately you move on to soften it somehow, perhaps by returning to whatever you were discussing in the first place.
     
    I am not thrilled speaking with these ones. If they try to start a fight – and it is always over the Trinity – I deflect. Hopefully I share my verse and leave it at that.
     
    When I offered a verse to one of these fellows, he immediately wanted to know my religion. Anyone else I would tell immediately, but to him I acted as though – well, it's rather a personal question, don't you think? I mean, this is the Bible. What is more Christian than to talk about it?
     
    Too many of these folks have their scholarship defined by their beliefs, and not the other way around. Too many have had a religious awakening of some sort. How do you tell them that their experience is not theirs? I don't try. If they find what they learned by revelation confirmed in Scripture, they are happy, but they are not unduly put out when they find it is not.
     
    Reliably, being saved by faith and not by works will come up. 'Of course,' I reply. 'Everyone knows that. But the works don't hurt, to they? They certainly give us some street cred.'
     
    What about "there has been a child born to us…his name will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, prince of peace," he challenges. What about it? I reply. Does he think I should have a problem with it? Why should I?
     
    He will have to get a little more specific than that if he wants to get into a shoving match. No scrapping on my watch. Wrestler

  • Scholars, Experts, and the Transfiguration

    The question was: how were Jesus words at Luke 9:27 fulfilled?

    “But I tell you truthfully, There are some of those standing here that will not taste death at all until first they see the kingdom of God.”

    It was multiple choice! The options were (with hints from the blogmaster):

     A.  The Transfiguration (already widely refuted by Christian scholars)
     B.  Jesus' Resurrection (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus come in His Kingdom)
     C.  Jesus' Ascension into Heaven (has Jesus going somewhere else, not coming in His Kingdom)
     D.  Pentecost (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus or His Kingdom*)
     E.  When the Gospel message was preached to the world (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus come in His Kingdom with power*)
     F.  When the Roman legions, under the command of Titus, crushed the Jewish rebellion and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (has nothing to do with seeing Jesus come in His Kingdom)
     G.  When Jesus established His "mediatorial" Kingdom (which nobody can actually see)

    Of course, I can't resist multiple choice, especially on the internet! I jumped in both feet and said: “A! It's A!" What clinches it is that “A” is "already widely refuted by Christian scholars. If these guys refute it, it must be so.”

    The blogmaster caught my drift: “Always the contrarian, huh tom? Do you run a hedge fund, by any chance?”

    I don't. But it is a fact that when all the experts are screaming “sell,” that's the time you buy. And so with choice “A.” All the 'experts' are selling it. I'll buy.

    Alright, alright, so it's a little more involved than that. We must look at why the experts refute the transfiguration, which Luke goes on to describe (Luke 9:28-37)

    “In actual fact, about eight days after these words, he took Peter and John and James along and climbed up into the mountain to pray. And as he was praying the appearance of his face became different and his apparel became glitteringly white. Also, look! two men were conversing with him, who were Moses and Elijah. These appeared with glory and began talking about his departure that he was destined to fulfill at Jerusalem. Now Peter and those with him were weighed down with sleep; but when they got fully awake they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. And as these were being separated from him, Peter said to Jesus: “Instructor, it is fine for us to be here, so let us erect three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah,” he not realizing what he was saying. But as he was saying these things a cloud formed and began to overshadow them. As they entered into the cloud, they became fearful. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying: “This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him.” And as the voice occurred Jesus was found alone. But they kept quiet and did not report to anyone in those days any of the things they saw. On the succeeding day, when they got down from the mountain, a great crowd met him.”

    Frankly, how could anyone not take this as the fulfillment of Jesus words. It's the very next event to follow! Luke even throws in a transitional phrase: "in actual fact." ("And it came to pass that"….KJV)  Talk about connecting the dots! How could anyone miss it?!
     
    The answer to how anyone could miss it is that “we don't see things like this happening today.” Thus, if the “scholars” and “experts” give “A” as their answer, they will be laughed off  the stage by those intellectuals whom they so desperately want to be counted among. This is but an NT manisfestation of the OT “we are wise and learned adults, far too clever to be sold Adam and Eve. What's next, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck?” syndrome. Far better to choose from answers “B” through “G,” options which can all be presented as “inspiring” or at least “open to many interpretations” (both the province of intellectuals) rather than “miraculous” (the province of dunces).

    These guys are spineless. And faithless. They ought not label themselves Christian experts, but something more along the lines of “deistic-flavored philosophers.” Why wouldn't Jesus' words just prior to Luke 9:27 apply to them?

    “For whoever becomes ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of man will be ashamed of this one when he arrives in his glory and that of the Father and of the holy angels”   Luke 9:26

    The laugh is that these Christian experts ignore the scripturally obvious answer to Luke 9:27, to suggest less miraculous and thereby more respectable interpretations, only to find that these choices also are ridiculed by today's intellectuals, who lean increasing atheistic. They sell out faith, and gain nothing in return! I'll side with Paul any day, who was “not ashamed” of the good news. (Rom 1:16)

    This sucking up to the world is by no means a modern development. Rather, it's a recurrent NT theme, expressed here, for example: “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled.”   2 Tim 4:3

    To be sure, not “putting up with healthful teaching” was to happen for a variety of reasons. Not all could be chalked up to currying favor with intellectuals, but a lot of it could.

    For example, the New Encyclopedia Britannica (remember encyclopedias?) writes: “Christians who had some training in Greek philosophy began to feel the need to express their faith in its terms, both for the own intellectual satisfaction and in order to convert educated pagans.” The Trinity teaching wormed in this way. It's not to be found in scripture, unless you take rather obvious metaphors literally. At various church councils, according to scholar Charles Freeman, those who came to believe Jesus was God “found it difficult to refute the many sayings of Jesus that suggested he was subordinate to God the Father.” So they began to elevate intellectual opinion (the sayings of Church Fathers) over the scriptures themselves!

    Now, everyone knows that Christianity began as a working-class religion, not an educated intellectual religion. From the former come folk who can call a spade a spade. From the latter come folk who can lift scripture to a loftier plane, make it respectable, and monetize it. Get a load of this snooty comment from theologian Gregory of Nyssa, mocking the 'lowlife' that were dumb enough to take scripture at face value:

    “Clothes dealers, money changers, and grocers are all theologians. If you inquire about the value of your money, some philosopher explains wherein the Son differs from the Father. If you ask the price of bread, your answer is the Father is greater than the Son. If you should want to know whether the bath is ready, you get the pronouncement that the Son was created out of nothing.”

    The above three paragraphs incorporates much that was presented in the Jan 15, 2012 Watchtower, including the quote from Gregory. JW detractors apparently accused the Watchtower of making up this quote out of thin air, since they couldn't find it themselves on the internet, and figured if it's not such low-hanging fruit, it must not exist! But Weedhacker [!] would have none of it and tracked down Gregory's words in Greek, Latin, and obscure places. So there.

    Back to my “Transfiguration” answer, the one "already widely refuted by Christian scholars."……this is a beaut: the blogmaster summarizes their attitudes thus (with apparent agreement): they “dismiss it by mentioning it in passing, as if it was not worth their effort to rebut because it is already known to be false.” Of course! There's my mistake! I'd overlooked how substantial  their talents and valuable their time must be that they cannot deign to waste them analyzing the verses that immediately follow Jesus' words with regard to coming into his kingdom.

    The important thing is for scholars to intellectualize the subject. Armchairify it. Steer far away from any interpretations that give credence to miracles, and especially any that might suggest commitment or action is required. Analyze the words….make a living off analyzing them, in fact. But don't be dumb enough to trap yourself into having to do any of them. Just like at Ezek 33:32: “you are to them like a song of sensuous loves, like one with a pretty voice and playing a stringed instrument well. And they will certainly hear your words, but there are none doing them.” They love to hear them. They love to debate them. They love to discuss them. But they don't love to do them. Not the experts. That's not their gig.

    ***********************************

    Read ‘Tom Irregardless and Me.’    30% free preview

    Starting with Prince, a fierce and frolicking defense of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A riotous romp through their way of life. “We have become a theatrical spectacle in the world, and to angels and to men,” the Bible verse says. That being the case, let’s give them some theater! Let’s skewer the liars who slander the Christ! Let’s pull down the house on the axis lords! Let the seed-pickers unite!