Jump to content
The World News Media

The Incredible Desert Find: the Sinaiticus Sheepngoats, Destined to Update the Bible Canon


TrueTomHarley

Recommended Posts


  • Views 2.2k
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

First of all, I should repeat that I have deep respect for the elders who call themselves the "Governing Body" because they have taken the lead in speaking and teaching. They are worthy of "double hon

Yes. Without some sort of governing arrangement—call it what you will—the Bible becomes a relic with the death of the apostles. Similar to how the constitution becomes a relic in the absence of a Supr

Whenever a new version of Scripture appears that is colloquialized, paraphrased, or just plain dumbed down, the refrain is heard: “If it gets modern people to read God’s Word, it is worth it.” How far

Posted Images

  • Member
31 minutes ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

Are you totally bored too ? 

Actually this serves to banish boredom.

And in a strange sort of way, I offer this as a Bible teaching tool. Most people quote a verse here or there from Galatians (sometimes I think the guy that invented numbered verses should be hung on a gallows) but if you asked them what the overall book was about, they wouldn’t have a clue. Now they will.

I can picture anyone with sufficient time on his hands reading Galatians 5:12 and saying ‘he said that?’ Of course, he did not, but what he did say was not totally from another planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Ah so you were bored but not now :) 

And I agree with you about numbering verses. I'm probably as guilty as anyone for taking a vese out of context. 

When we look at Paul's writings as the letters to congregations that they were, the we get a much better meaning from them. 

I would have loved to have met him. A man that wasn't frightened to speak his mind. Not all mamby pamby like the JW Org pretends to be. 

I've always found that the Org here in UK tries to act toooo posh. 

There was an old Elder in the Honiton congregation and he was an ex farmer. Henry was his name.

He would pronounce Honiton as Onitun, and Exeter as Hexeter. Poor man was always being told off by other Elders. But it was him, his character, the man he really was. But it was easy to see the other Elders didn't like it. 

It was so easy to see, and so funny, that congregants would put on a posher voice in the KH. Then once outside or away from the hall, even on the ministry, then would be back to their 'real self'. 

In my opinion God does not want posh. Jesus did not chose posh people for his disciples / apostles.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I love it. Galatians is about the best book to do that with because it's so dramatic.

43 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

but what he did say was not totally from another planet.

True. There are several widely published translations that don't veer too far from your version here, at least in places.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

it does serve to convey the basic idea of the entire Book of Galatians.

It can actually do "double-work" as commentary.

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I can picture anyone with sufficient time on his hands reading Galatians 5:12 and saying ‘he said that?’

Some widely used translations are rather jarring here with expressions like: "I wish the knife would slip."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
22 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It can actually do "double-work" as commentary.

I liked that Paul was largely autonomous for 17 years. I guess that I had imagined that he had marched to the territory servant the moment Ananias left him.

And yet he was not really independent. When he did touch base, it was “for fear that somehow I was running or had run in vain.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And yet he was not really independent. When he did touch base, it was “for fear that somehow I was running or had run in vain.”

That's how I had always read it, too. But there is also a strong possibility that he really means that he wanted to be sure that everything he was doing was not being undone by these superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John). James and Peter had influence outside of Jerusalem, obviously all the way up to Galatia, where James sent people to undermine Paul's work, and Peter actually visited himself and ended up setting a bad example for the brothers, there.

Under another topic you already responded to some of these points, but I'll pick up on them again here.

Remember, too, that Peter was a big influence in Corinth, too, so that some were saying they belonged to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. Paul drops several hints even in Corinthians that the superfine apostles included the "James gang" and others from the "Jerusalem party."  It was easy for the Corinthians to see these apostles appointed by Jesus as a kind of Governing Body representing themselves as THE (superfine) FAITHFUL STEWARD. So Paul made a point to them that he was not a steward that needed such a human "tribunal."

(1 Corinthians 4:1-3) . . .A man should regard us as attendants of Christ and stewards of God’s sacred secrets. 2 In this regard, what is expected of stewards is that they be found faithful. 3 Now to me it is of very little importance to be examined by you or by a human tribunal.. . .

It's also pretty clear that Paul is speaking of this same tribunal that he speaks of in Galatians. Even the timing is set for us.

  • (2 Corinthians 12:1, 2) . . .I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. 2 I know a man in union with Christ who, 14 years ago—whether in the body or out of the body, I do not know; God knows—was caught away to the third heaven.
  • (Galatians 2:1, 2) . . .Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up as a result of a revelation,. . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
18 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

superfine apostles from Jerusalem (like James, Peter, and John).

I am under the impression that these brothers were not who Paul had in mind, but he was talking about the "Judeizers" 

Didn't he call James, Peter and John pillars? I'm not on my pc so I can't check. I will probably have to come back to this later with some scriptures...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
56 minutes ago, Anna said:

Didn't he call James, Peter and John pillars?

No. Certainly not! They were Judaizers. So he said they "seemed to be pillars."

(Galatians 2:6-9) . . .But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the good news for those who are uncircumcised, just as Peter had been for those who are circumcised— 8 for the one who empowered Peter for an apostleship to those who are circumcised also empowered me for those who are of the nations— 9 and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship, . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
59 minutes ago, Anna said:

I am under the impression that these brothers were not who Paul had in mind, but he was talking about the "Judeizers" 

Paul specifically mentions Peter as coming to Antioch and being clearly in the wrong when Peter "feared those of the circumcised class." But look who sent those men of the circumcised class:

(Galatians 2:11, 12) . . .However, when Ceʹphas came to Antioch, I resisted him face-to-face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 For before certain men from James arrived, he used to eat with people of the nations; but when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself, fearing those of the circumcised class.

It was specifically because these men had such a "superfine" reputation as the leaders in Jerusalem that Paul went to the trouble of saying that "even if it were an angel from heaven declaring a different good news" they should CURSE that angel.

(Galatians 1:7-9) . . .Not that there is another good news; but there are certain ones who are causing you trouble and wanting to distort the good news about the Christ. 8 However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to you as good news something beyond the good news we declared to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, I now say again, Whoever is declaring to you as good news something beyond what you accepted, let him be accursed.

The focus was on "whoever" even if that "whoever" turned out to be "we" -- the persons the Galatians would have trusted, even an APOSTLE like Paul himself --  or even an ANGEL. Well what was considered the closest thing to an ANGEL for the congregations in that day? 

I think we know that the most likely persons were the apostles at Jerusalem who were actively trying to Judaize or the apostles who knew better but allowed their own peers at Jerusalem to influence them to Judaize. Why else would Paul immediately try to distance himself from these very apostles? Why would he immediately follow this up by showing how he distanced himself from any supposed authority or teachings coming out of Jerusalem?

(Galatians 1:10-2:7) . . .Is it, in fact, men I am now trying to persuade or God? Or am I trying to please men? . . . the good news I declared to you is not of human origin; 12 for neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it was through a revelation by Jesus Christ. . . . 15 But when God . . . thought good 16 to reveal his Son through me so that I might declare the good news about him to the nations, I did not immediately consult with any human; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before I was, but I went to Arabia, and then I returned to Damascus. 18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to visit Ceʹphas, and I stayed with him for 15 days. 19 But I did not see any of the other apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 20 Now regarding the things I am writing you, I assure you before God that I am not lying. . . . 22 But I was personally unknown to the congregations of Ju·deʹa. . . . 2 Then after 14 years I again went up to Jerusalem with Barʹna·bas, also taking Titus along with me. . . . 3 Nevertheless, not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, although he was a Greek. 4 But that matter came up because of the false brothers brought in quietly, who slipped in to spy on the freedom we enjoy in union with Christ Jesus, so that they might completely enslave us; 5 we did not yield in submission to them, no, not for a moment, so that the truth of the good news might continue with you. 6 But regarding those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me, for God does not go by a man’s outward appearance—those highly regarded men imparted nothing new to me. 7 On the contrary,. . .

Why do we think that Paul tries to show that he never had much interaction at all with Jerusalem, and the "supposed" pillars there? Why is it important that he say he did NOT go up to Jerusalem "to those were apostles" but ran off to Arabia instead? Even after three years he only just spent two weeks in Jerusalem staying with Peter, and he happened to see James while he was there -- but NONE of the other apostles?

What is the main point here that he wants the Galatians to be sure they remember he is not lying about? It can only be that he must do his best to smash this myth that Jerusalem is the seat of some kind of authority they should accept. These Galatians are complying with Judaizers, the same problem in Antioch, because they thought that Jerusalem had authority to impose such doctrines on them. So Paul makes it clear that even when he was right there in Jerusalem, that they were not compelled to follow the Judaizers, and the "false brothers" in Jerusalem who wanted to enslave them back into aspects of Jewish law, the most obtrusive of which was "circumcision" - which Paul also utilized as a key expression to summarize the entire egregious idea of being put under law. 

You can see that here when circumcision is expanded to mean any kind of placement under law:

(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again? 10 You are scrupulously observing days and months and seasons and years. 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

But it also included putting themselves under stewards and supervisors. Now that they were no longer under law, they should understand that they are all sons and heirs, and have no reason to go back under human stewards and supervisors. This might refer back to Paul's comments about the supposed "pillars" at Jerusalem, whose authority he didn't accept.

(Galatians 4:1-11) . . .Now I say that as long as the heir is a young child, he is no different from a slave, although he is the lord of all things, 2 but he is under supervisors and stewards until the day set ahead of time by his father. 3 Likewise, we too, when we were children, were enslaved by the elementary things of the world. 4 But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent his Son, who was born of a woman and who was under law, 5 that he might release by purchase those under law, so that we might receive the adoption as sons. 6 Now because you are sons, God has sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts, and it cries out: “Abba, Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, then you are also an heir through God. 8 Nevertheless, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those who are not really gods. 9 But now that you have come to know God or, rather, have come to be known by God, how is it that you are turning back again to the weak and beggarly elementary things and want to slave for them over again?

I think we can take from this that even where the supposed pillars and supervisors (governing bodies) and stewards are faithful and give us good instruction and a good example to follow, that we never should accept that "authority" is coming from them. It should never be the Governing Body we think of them as persons to "obey." Except in the sense of following good examples that their experience has proven to be worthwhile to imitate. Just as we do should do for any elders taking the lead.

(Hebrews 13:7-17) 7 Remember those who are taking the lead among you, who have spoken the word of God to you, and as you contemplate how their conduct turns out, imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, and forever. 9 Do not be led astray by various and strange teachings, for it is better for the heart to be strengthened by undeserved kindness than by foods, which do not benefit those occupied with them. . . . 16 Moreover, do not forget to do good and to share what you have with others, for God is well-pleased with such sacrifices. 17 Be obedient to those who are taking the lead among you and be submissive, for they are keeping watch over you as those who will render an account, so that they may do this with joy and not with sighing, for this would be damaging to you.

Those who think their changing teachings are "food" forget that Jesus is the same, unchanging, and it is undeserved kindness that is much more important than various and strange teachings. Therefore, the ones taking the lead that we are obedient to, are not ones where we feel we must be obedient to any specific teachings. We are obedient to their concerns and counsel about our CONDUCT to the extent that we respect how their own conduct and faith has turned out. This probably sounds like heresy to those who can't get over the idea that we need to be OBEDIENT to the teachings of the Governing Body, or even OBEDIENT the teachings of faithful stewards. We are actually obedient to the counsel of those who are concerned about our Christian conduct, and if we can see that this counsel conforms to their own good example. The real spiritual "food," where we should get our motivation and energy, is our response to Christ's "undeserved kindness." Our "will" should be to Jehovah's will, and find good leading examples that can help us do his will. That should be the motive. God has given us the greatest example of doing good for us, so we wish to also "do good and share what we have with others." These are the good works and conduct that should also be the "meat" of our meetings:

(Hebrews 10:24, 25) 24 And let us consider one another so as to incite to love and fine works, 25 not forsaking our meeting together, as some have the custom, but encouraging one another, . . .

Considering (remembering/comtemplating) one another so as to incite (lead/motivate) to love and fine works. This is the reason for meeting together and encouraging one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.