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

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

12 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

If anyone questions or criticises the GB they are accused of 'causing a division in the congregation' and can be disfellowshipped. 

I did not agree with all of your post, where I quoted from you the above comment ... but I "upvoted" it anyway, because I know your quoted cringeworthy statement is true.

... just any JW try it at the next Watchtower Study.

.... raise your hand and ask a tough question, using unapproved words.

.... after the meeting, you would have to get back to the parking lot through infamous "ROOM 101".

This was first "legally" established in the not-so Super Secret 2010 Elders' Handbook, with the  term "Brazen" conduct, which was a catch-all that could include ANYTHING ..... and when it hit the fan that there was no Biblical backup for this,  three years later the 2013 "Silver Sword" NWT came out with the word "Brazen" several times ... WITH THE WHOLE BIBLE PARAPHRASED, of all things ... THE WHOLE BIBLE "SIMPLIFIED" ... to back up  the direction given three years earlier.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The Society never apologizes for anything they totally screw up ....  and to the best of my knowledge, NEVER has apologized for anything in ruining peoples' lives, historically,  .... because they can just change the definitions of what words mean ("new light"), or where it is to their advantage to do so to push the agenda,  keep them so ambiguous, they can mean ANYTHING.

Here is the test (and perhaps I am wrong because I missed it somewhere along the line ... please correct me if I am wrong ....):

How EXACTLY does the Society define "Brazen Conduct"?

What is included?

What is excluded?

How about ten or so REAL WORLD, CONTEMPORARY unambiguous examples?

To the best of my knowledge ... currently it can include anything the Elders don't like.

If I am wrong, please point it out to me, and I will change my viewpoint, and embarrassed, beg your humble pardon.

I think we need an 18 paragraph unambiguous, non touchy-freely and non scripturally recursive,  direct and comprehensive Watchtower Article on this ONE topic only .... instead of the usual circular logic topics reiterated, over, and over, and over, and over ...

...and over and over and over and over.

I am sure I would stay Awake!, for THAT one.

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

The way things are progressing, I wonder when they select a new member of the Governing Body, the "Helpers" will have white smoke come out of that Watchtower at the main entrance of Warwick Bethel ?.....

[Evacuated]

5 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

How EXACTLY does the Society define "Brazen Conduct"?

More importantly, what actually does the word "brazen" mean?

It is a translation of the Greek word  "ἀσέλγεια  - aslegia" which literally appears to mean:  in-continent. (ἀ-σέλγεια)

Various English definitions are submitted "unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence"

The word "brazen" has been dictionary defined as:

"bold, shameless, as bold as brass, brazen-faced, forward, presumptuous, brash, immodest,  unashamed, unabashed, unembarrassed,   unblushing;  defiant, impudent, insolent, impertinent, cheeky, pert; barefaced,  blatant, flagrant, undisguised”

The Cambridge Dictionary describes the American usage of the word “brazen” as an adjective, used: “(of something bad) done without trying to hide it:”

So it is a word referring mainly to the attitude of someone engaging in serious wrong conduct , frequently, but not exclusively,  in the context of improper sexual behaviour.

In Watchtower publications “brazen” has been defined as being:

“From the Greek a·selʹgei·a, a phrase pertaining to acts that are serious violations of God’s laws and that reflect a brazen or boldly contemptuous attitude; a spirit that betrays disrespect or even contempt for authority, laws, and standards. The expression does not refer to wrong conduct of a minor nature.—Ga 5:19; 2Pe 2:7.”

Is there really a problem in understanding how the word "brazen" should be understood in the context of human behaviour?

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

22 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

Is there really a problem in understanding how the word "brazen" should be understood in the context of human behaviour?

We seem to have world class problems understanding the simplest common sense things .... like what a "Generation" is. Everyone else on the planet uses ONE definition, and always has ... except us.

I cannot even imagine the Apostles understanding what Jesus said the way we are told to.

That's why I want the GB "OFFICIAL" explanation, which may or may not have anything at all with standard definitions, common sense, or reality. 

They really ought to tell us what definitions we are actually using to make determinations of what is, and what is not "brazen conduct", so that the excesses that all humans are subject to do not cause irreparable harm when being applied ... because we are being governed BY AND WITH those definitions.

This is NOT a new issue ... and REMAINS unresolved, since 2010, almost a decade ago.

Historically, the record of "straight shooting", and accountability has been terrible.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

29 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

More importantly, what actually does the word "brazen" mean?

It is a translation of the Greek word  "ἀσέλγεια  - aslegia" which literally appears to mean:  in-continent. (ἀ-σέλγεια)

Just as the word "Gay" means something COMPLETELY different than when you and I were growing up ... perhaps the word back then meant something like urinating in public, or dressing in such a way that was immodest if one was incontinent.

With our track record of being right about such things, it may have originally meant anything at all EXCEPT what the Society officially tells us is the case.

[Evacuated]

19 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

That's why I want the GB "OFFICIAL" explanation

Quoted in my post?

 

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

perhaps the word back then meant something like urinating in public, or dressing in such a way that was immodest if one was incontinent.

The incontinence is more about uncontrolled immoral behaviour than an actual bodily function, hence the translation earlier as "loose conduct". There is enough information on the use of the word in ancient times to arrive at a pretty good understanding of what it means.

Incidentally, the literal act of urinating in public could well be accompanied by the attitude the word describes, and would then be construed as "aselgeia".

[JW Insider]

8 minutes ago, Outta Here said:

There is enough information on the use of the word in ancient times

I liked Thayer's glossary definitions included in the post linked below. But to avoid diverting people off to another topic, I'll just repost that definition:

But it's not a terrible translation, as it really was used in Greek with reference to "brazen hussies." (shameless hussies, and wanton hussies - and brazen hustlers, too, for that matter.) Literally, it meant people who were not so moral as those good folks up in the town of Selge, Pisidia, Asia Minor. It's much better than the old translation in the NWT (loose conduct) which was actually a mistranslation because it implied lesser moral infractions of a more general variety.

Note Thayer's:

ἀσέλγεια, -ας, ἡ, the conduct and character of one who is ἀσελγής (a word which some suppose to be compounded of the α privative and Σέλγη, the name of a city in Pisidia whose citizens excelled in strictness of morals [so Etym. Magn. 152, 38; per contra cf. Suidas 603 d.]: others of α intensive and σαλαγεῖν, to disturb, raise a din; others, and now the majority, of α privative and σέλγω equivalent to θέλγω, not affecting pleasantly, exciting disgust), unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, lasciviousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence:Mark 7:22 (where it is uncertain what particular vice is spoken of); of gluttony and venery, Jude 1:4; plural, 1 Peter 4:3; 2 Peter 2:2 (for Rec. ἀπωλείαις), 2 Peter 2:18; of carnality, lasciviousness: 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 4:19; 2 Peter 2:7; plural "wanton (acts or) manners, as filthy words, indecent bodily movements, unchaste handling of males and females, etc." (Fritzsche), Romans 13:13. (In Biblical Greek besides only in Wis. 14:26 and 3 Macc. 2:26. Among Greek writings used by Plato, Isocrates and following; at length by Plutarch [Lucull. 38] and Lucian [dial. meretr. 6] of the wantonness of women [Lob. ad Phryn., p. 184 n.].) Cf. Tittmann i., p. 151f; [especially Trench, § xvi.].

 

[JW Insider]

On 6/14/2019 at 1:48 AM, Anna said:

It jumped out at me that it was the former sect of the Pharisees that were insisting on circumcision and were the cause of all the trouble in Jerusalem and that Paul was referring to them when he wrote to the Galatians about certain ones distorting the good news about the Christ and being false brothers.

I'm pretty sure that everything you said in this post was true. But with some caveats that I'd like to highlight. If we take Acts 15 as fully parallel to Galatians 2, as you and Outta Here have done, then I agree that we should not consider the apostles and older men of Jerusalem to be "Judaizers." In Acts, Peter and James are fully credited with doing things correctly, and all blame is placed on the sect of the Pharisees and believers like them.

Evidently, in my opinion, this sect of the Pharisees, or similar Judeans pushing circumcision, were seen (by the Galatians at least) as getting their authority from men like Peter, James and John. Therefore Paul warns them, in my opinion, that even if it were Peter, James and John, or even an angel, that they should not submit. But Paul never says it wasn't them giving authority to the Judaizers. He never exonerates Peter, James and John. He even goes so far as never to actually call them "pillars" but couches their authority in language like "seemed to be pillars" and that it wouldn't matter who they were anyway, because they are just men, and Paul isn't trying to please men. Of course, in other places, and here, too, Paul also goes into a discussion of where his own authority comes from and why no one could say that any of Paul's authority came from Jerusalem. As in at least two other places, Paul sees fit in this context to compare his own authority, with that of the apostles in Jerusalem. 

It seems that if Paul were trying to exonerate Peter, James and John, (as Acts 15 does) then he would not be expected to add so many phrases that diminish their authority, and he would have no reason to highlight his independence from Jerusalem. He surely could have exonerated them by mentioning the decree that they had agreed to. If Paul had still considered this decree authoritative, it was the perfect answer to the Galatians who thought that James and Peter were on the side of circumcision, and the whole problem with the Galatians would be over. On another note, Paul doesn't even mention the "decree" in any of his letters. The closest he gets to discussing the decree is in 1 Corinthians 8, where he appears to contradict what it said about eating food sacrificed to idols.

However, I now believe I was mistaken in trying to tie this Judaizing so directly to Peter and John. And @Outta Here has me thinking it might not apply to James either. Not that they ever were ACTIVE Judaizers, but I thought Paul was including Peter's example, because Peter had publicly sided with the Judaizers even though admittedly temporarily. This had put a stamp of authority on the Judaizers which allowed Paul's audience to believe that those apostles with authority over Paul actually had the last word on circumcision. Judaizers were spoken of as being smuggled in, rather than just coming of their own accord. And Paul said that these men were "from James" implying that James, another man of great reputation and authority among the apostles at Jerusalem, had given a stamp of authority to the Judaizers.  

I'm not yet convinced, as Outta Here seems to be, that saying that a group of Judaizers came from James, is really about the same as saying that a group of Judaizers came from Judea. If he had said, "from John" would that also just mean "from Judea"? I'm sure that Paul is at least saying that James knew their beliefs and that he had sent them, purposely, perhaps not to engage with Paul to subvert him, but to listen carefully to what he was saying to gentile converts about the Mosaic Law. James would therefore be admitting tacitly that he expected a potential problem would need to be resolved and the people he sent would have been most sensitive to what Paul was teaching.

I also don't know if we can say that they worked things out so "amicably" but things did finally work out over time. I mention this for the same reason I mentioned a transition period that is indicated in Acts between chapters 15 and Acts 21. In fact, I think if we look closely at Acts, that it's easy to see that Luke's goal was to leave out a lot of detail when it detracted from the minimum that a Christian needed to know about the past. I'll get to that later, and the rest of this post will just be a background for later reference before talking about the way Luke/Acts selects details.

I once tried to reconstruct the timeline of Acts from the chronology markers, to match it up with Galatians and others of Paul's letters, and this is much easier to do now with the Internet (and the Bearing Witness book), and so many online reference works available. It might seem like a waste of time, but it might give also us some insight into the types of things Luke includes in Acts and what he leaves out. That might not seem important now, but for me, it was a key part of my overall opinion (which could be partially or completely wrong, of course) along with a comparison between Acts, Galatians and the letters to the Corinthians.

Here we can also compare Acts 21:20-26 to Acts 15:

(Acts 21:20-26) . . .After hearing this, they began to glorify God, but they said to him: “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the Law. 21 But they have heard it rumored about you that you have been teaching all the Jews among the nations an apostasy from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or to follow the customary practices. 22 What, then, is to be done about it? They are certainly going to hear that you have arrived. 23 So do what we tell you: We have four men who have put themselves under a vow. 24 Take these men with you and cleanse yourself ceremonially together with them and take care of their expenses, so that they may have their heads shaved. Then everyone will know that there is nothing to the rumors they were told about you, but that you are walking orderly and you are also keeping the Law. . . . 26 Then Paul took the men the next day and cleansed himself ceremonially along with them, and he went into the temple to give notice of when the days for the ceremonial cleansing would be completed and the offering should be presented for each one of them.

By this time, Paul had been teaching that Jewish persons need not follow the customary Jewish practices. And by this time, Paul had already been saying that if anyone gets circumcised, then they are under obligation to keep the entire Law. Undeserved kindness+faith was being contrasted with works of Law as the "path to salvation," but by the time Ephesians was written, undeserved kindness+faith was apparently being contrasted with good works of any kind as a path to salvation. Paul had already been teaching about circumcision and extending it to mean any type of putting oneself under law, just as trying to gain salvation by works had extended past works of Law to any good works. Ephesians 2:8-17.

Note that these verses were written to uncircumcised believers, but with an obvious application to circumcised Jewish believers, too:

• (Colossians 2:13, 14) . . .He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and erased the handwritten document that consisted of decrees and was in opposition to us. He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.

• (Galatians 5:2-6) . . .See! I, Paul, am telling you that if you become circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Again I bear witness to every man who gets circumcised that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You are separated from Christ, you who are trying to be declared righteous by means of law; you have fallen away from his undeserved kindness. 5 For our part, we are by spirit eagerly waiting for the hoped-for righteousness resulting from faith. 6 For in union with Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith operating through love is.

• (Romans 2:28, 29) . . .For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision something on the outside, on the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit and not by a written code. That person’s praise comes from God, not from people.

The bt book mentions these same scriptures and notes that this case in Acts 21 depicts Paul becoming a Jew to those who are Jews to hopefully win them over.

• (1 Corinthians 9:20) 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew in order to gain Jews; to those under law I became as under law, though I myself am not under law, in order to gain those under law.

So far none of this is a problem to understanding it the way you (Anna) have presented it.

[JW Insider]

As an "aside," I also want to comment on the prominence of James, himself.

For years I just assumed that the prominence of James was somewhat by accident, due to a rotation of the chairman of the Governing Body, and basing this idea on the article that introduced the modern Governing Body in 1971:

*** w71 12/15 p. 759 A Governing Body as Different from a Legal Corporation ***
Apparently, the apostle Peter was the chairman of the governing body on the festival day of Pentecost of 33 C.E., and the disciple James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, was the chairman at a later date, according to the account in Acts of Apostles. From this, and from what historical evidence there is available, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated, just the same as the chairmanship of the presbytery or “body of elders” of each Christian congregation rotated among the coequal elders.—1 Tim. 4:14.

What I hadn't realized at the time was that the term "what historical evidence there is available" was nothing at all, so that the rotation evidence sentence could have said "From this, and no other evidence at all, the chairmanship of the governing body rotated." And of course, the referenced scripture, 1 Tim 4:14, says nothing about a chairmanship of the "body of elders" rotating, either.

(1 Timothy 4:14) 14 Do not neglect the gift in you that was given you through a prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you.

So we should look again at when the prominence of James first shows up:

It's true that he seems to have the last word in the Acts 15 scenario:

• (Acts 15:6-22) 6 So the apostles and the elders gathered together to look into this matter. 7 After much intense discussion had taken place, Peter rose and. . . .13 After they finished speaking, James replied: . . . .

It isn't definitive that he was head of a rotating chairmanship, but it's still true that Peter and James are mentioned here as speaking in leadership capacities.

Also, earlier, when Peter gets out of prison his first statement is:

• (Acts 12:17) 17 But he motioned to them with his hand to be silent and told them in detail how Jehovah had brought him out of the prison, and he said: “Report these things to James and the brothers.” . . .

And a statement Paul makes about the order of Jesus' appearances after his resurrected, and another statement that shows that persons were just as interested in James and his brothers as the 12 apostles, so that they were so often mentioned together.

• (1 Corinthians 15:5-7) .5 and that he appeared to Ceʹphas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that he appeared to more than 500 brothers at one time, most of whom are still with us, though some have fallen asleep in death. 7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
• (1 Corinthians 9:5) 5 We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not?

Years after Acts 15, Paul comes back to Jerusalem, and the first named person he meets with is James, and a group of elders, this time to discuss nearly the same issue relative to Jewish Christian believers, not Gentile Christian believers as had been discussed previously.

• (Acts 21:17-19) 17 When we got to Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us gladly. 18 But on the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 And he greeted them and began giving a detailed account of the things God did among the nations through his ministry.

So based on the evidence, it's probable that there never was a rotation system, and James continued to hold a very prominent, perhaps the most prominent leadership role in the Jerusalem congregation: the COBE, possibly from prior to Acts 12 all the way up to Acts 21 and beyond.

Also, as the Bearing Witness books notes, neither Peter nor any of the other apostles are mentioned in Acts 21, so that it is ONLY James and the elders. The book assumes that the apostles might no longer be in Jerusalem. I don't know how this might affect the original "governing body" in Jerusalem theory.

[JOHN BUTLER]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The way things are progressing, I wonder when they select a new member of the Governing Body, the "Helpers" will have white smoke come out of that Watchtower at the main entrance of Warwick Bethel ?.....

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Thank you for that cartoon. At least you show me as human. 

And I do find it kinda funny that you tend to agree with a lot of my 'stuff' sort of  

I know I come across as immature that's because I am. But you put the same points in to more perspective. You make it real and can back it up more readily than i can. 

It's not about taking sides, it's about getting the truth out there. 

As a side note: I'm enjoying this forum much more since I've stopped reading the Kid's comments. 

Your point on the word Brazen is very important as it shows the Elders are given free reign to use any excuse to 'remove' people or put them on the 'watched list'. 

By  your comments though James i can see that you agree that the GB / Watchtower / JW Org has a lot of cleaning out to do. They need to be washing the inside of that dish or bowl as Jesus said, not just polishing the outside. 

And in my opinion it takes people from inside and outside tp push for changes. 

To me it looks like 8 million people that are trying to do right, being Governed by 8 men and other hierarchy that enjoy doing wrong. 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, JOHN BUTLER said:

To me it looks like 8 million people that are trying to do right, being Governed by 8 men and other hierarchy that enjoy doing wrong. 

I don't think they "enjoy" doing wrong ... it's just that they have fallen into the trap that EVERY shamen, witch doctor, priest, or respected religious leader falls into when they start accumulating money, real estate, and camera time.

That's what that job does to people.

In the entire history of the human existence of directly created Man, in over six thousand years, and from sea to shining sea, there has only been ONE exception.