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

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

6 hours ago, Outta Here said:

The incontinence is more about uncontrolled immoral behaviour than an actual bodily function, hence the translation earlier as "loose conduct".

THAT ... passes the "smell test".  It makes good common sense.

Still, I would like the Society to expound and codify it.

To protect the innocent from being caught in the Dragnet of a witch hunt for foggery and mopery, with smoke and mirrors. 

The G.B., and Elders almost always have the very best of motives, but not always.

Also, motives, and competence are two entirely different things.

Just WANTING to do what is right is not enough ...

Ever read the book "The Peter Principle"?

EVERYONE eventually can get promoted, based on merit to a level where they are no longer competent.

A stellar Ministerial Servant becoming an Elder, can become a Beserker, through incompetence, with the very best of heart condition and motivation. Occasionally, you will find one as dumb as a stick, who understands NOTHING, not written in stone.

...that's why God used to write things in stone!

The issue has been ignored for almost ten years now.

 

[Anna]

22 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

 

 

What's wrong with my hair?

[Anna]

20 hours ago, JW Insider said:

 

 

 

Might sound archaic in America, but not long ago I heard someone (non JW) in England describe a frivolous woman as a "brazen hussy". Usually this term is used in jest.

[Anna]

19 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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.

I understand your reasoning and I agree that Paul is warning the Galatians about listening to anyone but Jesus and Jehovah perhaps using Peter and co. as an example. As for Paul not exonerating Peter etc. I think it's evident that everything was ok between them in the long run. With the wording "seemed to be pillars" I took that to mean that to Paul it was "apparent" that they were pillars. 

I've run out of time so I will comment some more on the rest of your post later...

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

10 hours ago, Anna said:

Might sound archaic in America, but not long ago I heard someone (non JW) in England describe a frivolous woman as a "brazen hussy". Usually this term is used in jest.

Definitions vary from time to time, and place to place ....... and whether or not an otherwise very fine Elder has a Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome Flashback, of when he was humiliated in Mrs. Grundy's Math Class in the 7th grade, and made him sit in the corner wearing a dunce cap, and he cried, and everybody laughed at him, and he wet his pants, and they had to call his mother to pick him up from school ..... at the same time you are bouncing off of him this new idea you just had about something-or-another theological in nature, and you used unapproved words, and previously Society unapproved concepts.

The next thing you know, you are in "Room 101" defending yourself from a Tribunal of Judges who accuse you of brazenly apostatizing to an Elder.

THAT's why we need to have a complete and direct and comprehensive definition as to how the Society sees the word BRAZEN ... it looks like they have run out of material, anyway.

A LONG time ago, but more particularly since they are not making up stuff about Armageddon's timetable, and types/anti-types, anymore.

A whole Watchtower, or perhaps just 18 paragraphs, if the explanation does not try to recount the history of every other word that also starts with a "B", to fill up all 18 paragraphs.

 

[TrueTomHarley]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

every other word that also starts with a "B".

‘Broke record,’ for instance.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

every other word that also starts with a "B".

‘Broke record,’ for instance.

I subscribe to Netflix DVD ... I get two at a time, and as soon as I view them, I send them back and get two more, already on my que list.

About one in four is not playable ... severely scratched, or the DVD is actually broken.

What to do ... what to do?

I report it and send it back to get one that is usable, and as soon as I report it on their website, they IMMEDIATELY send me a replacement that IS playable   About one time in five THAT DVD is also unplayable, so I do it again.  On rare occasion the THIRD DVD is not playable, and I give up, and buy the DVD off of Ebay.

Even with their spotty track record NETFLIX is still the best deal I have found .... so I stay with the program.

...that's what I am TRYING to do here.

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

 

If "loose conduct" is a fuzzy, nebulous "what the hell does THAT mean?" phrase ... the term "brazen conduct"" although it MAY be more accurate ( and I am NOT conceding that ...) is an even MORE fuzzy, nebulous "what the hell does THAT mean?" phrase

It can even be bent into a pretzels shape to persecute  any behavior that someone else does not like .... BUT EVEN MORE DANGEROUS ...can be bent into a pretzel to persecute what someone else THINKS, and discusses.

If anyone at Bethel is monitoring these discussions ... and I am reasonably sure someone is ... please consider this a request for solid, unambiguous clarification in the Watchtower, as to whether this applies to intellectual discussion and beliefs ... and DEFINE how this word is GOING TO BE USED IN OUR GOVERNANCE.

.... besides .. you have been out of new topics for a VERY long time ...

I remember an old movie, set in medieval times, with Omar Sharif as the main character ... and someone asked his character if there really was such a thing as witches?

His reply was (paraphrased ...) "I hope so, because we burn 16,000 a year to death, here in Germany."

 

 

 

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

Yeah ... nothing is funnier than a knee-slapping back yard Bar-B-Que cookout, with the hot dogs and hamburgers being cooked over a screaming, burning  witch ....

======================================================

[JW Insider]

21 hours ago, Anna said:

I understand your reasoning and I agree that Paul is warning the Galatians about listening to anyone but Jesus and Jehovah perhaps using Peter and co. as an example.

It might be useful to note that, from a more practical perspective, Paul is warning the Galatians about listening to anyone who is telling them something different from the good news that Paul preached to them. In effect, don't listen to anyone but the apostle Paul. His reasoning is that he, Paul, is the one who got this "good news from Christ, and not from any humans. So indirectly, yes, Paul is warning them about listening to anyone but Jesus and Jehovah, but he sets himself up as a more reliable source of what Jesus and Jehovah are telling them. And he clearly implies that he is a more reliable source than some of what's been coming out of Jerusalem.

Using Peter as an example, only drove home the point about why Paul was the person they should listen to -- and not Jerusalem.

• Galatians 1:9 KJV As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

21 hours ago, Anna said:

With the wording "seemed to be pillars" I took that to mean that to Paul it was "apparent" that they were pillars. 

That's rarely the use of "seemed" (Gk, dokeo).

δοκέω , -ῶ; imperfect ἐδόκουν; 1 aorist ἔδοξα; (akin to δέχομαι or δέκομαι, whence δόκος an assumption, opinion [cf. Latin decus, decet, dignus; Curtius § 15; cf. his Das Verbum, i., pp. 376, 382]); [from Homer down];
1. to be of opinion, think, suppose: . . . 2. intransitive, to seem, be accounted, reputed: . . .

Not to belabor too much but the subject of Galatians 2:6 includes James and Peter, as we already know. Even without the context, this word means "apparently but not necessarily" or phrases to that effect. But just to be doubly clear, Paul includes the context to show why it was not necessarily true that they were in fact pillars.

(Galatians 2:1-9) . . .. 2 I went [to Jerusalem] up as a result of a revelation, and I presented to them the good news that I am preaching among the nations. This was done privately, however, before the men who were highly regarded, to make sure that I was not running or had not run in vain. 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, 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, so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised.

The easiest reading of the above treats the gray portion (verse 4 and 5) as a parenthetical about those who were false brothers, who slipped in to spy, and to whom Paul and his companions did not yield. Paul makes it clear he has gone back to speaking about Peter, James, John (and company) in verse 6. And just in case we didn't see that, he specifically names them in verse 9.

Paul also used the word "seemed" up in verse 2 (Gal 2:2) where it says "the men who were highly regarded." They were definitely highly regarded, but why use the word for "seemed" (dokeo)? It means that the verse could also be properly translated:

• (NLT) While I was there I met privately with those considered to be leaders of the church . . .
• (NIV) meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders,
• (ESV) though privately before those who seemed influential

It's actually very easy to say (in Greek) that someone is a pillar, or is influential, or is highly regarded. One doesn't have use dokeo, which more often than not, has a negative connotation. This doesn't mean that dokeo ALWAYS implies a negative connotation. But to avoid ambiguity,  a Greek writer could simply add the "contrary" phrase, like Paul did when he added: "but these men imparted nothing new" or "whatever they were makes no difference to me" or "God does not go by a man's outward appearance."

In fact here are other ways that Paul used the term, including the ONLY other time he used it in Galatians:

• (Galatians 6:2, 3) . . .. 3 For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deceiving himself. (NWT)

And here are the majority of Paul's uses in letters to the Corinthians, which I believe give a similar form: 

• (1 Corinthians 3:18) . . .Let no one deceive himself: If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, . . .
• (1 Corinthians 8:2) 2 If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it.
• (1 Corinthians 10:12) 12 So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.
• (1 Corinthians 12:22) . . .On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary,
• (1 Corinthians 14:37) 37 If anyone thinks he is a prophet or is gifted with the spirit, he must acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are the Lord’s commandment.
• (2 Corinthians 10:9) . . .For I do not want to seem as though I were trying to terrify you by my letters.
• (2 Corinthians 11:16) . . .I say again: Let no one think I am unreasonable. But even if you do, then accept me as an unreasonable person, so that I too may boast a little.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(2 Corinthians 11:16) . . .I say again: Let no one think I am unreasonable. But even if you do, then accept me as an unreasonable person, so that I too may boast a little.

Of course, just to get back to the topic, I should add that, in that last entry, Paul goes on to use this unreasonableness to defend himself against "the most esteemed apostles" (2 Cor 11:5). Again, I don't think these apostles are meant to directly equate to the "highly regarded" apostles in Jerusalem. But we do know that they included more than just the "false" apostles because Paul admits that they were "ministers of Christ" something he would not say about those who were continuing as false apostles.

• (2 Corinthians 11:21-12:12) . . .But if others act boldly—I am talking unreasonably—I too act boldly. 22 Are they Hebrews? I am one also. Are they Israelites? I am one also. Are they Abraham’s offspring? I am also. 23 Are they ministers of Christ? I reply like a madman, I am more outstandingly one: I have done more work, been imprisoned more often, suffered countless beatings, and experienced many near-deaths. . . .  31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, the One who is to be praised forever, knows I am not lying. . . .1 I have to boast. It is not beneficial, but I will move on to supernatural visions and revelations of the Lord. . . .  But I refrain from doing so, in order that no one should give me more credit than what he sees in me or hears from me, 7 just because of receiving such extraordinary revelations. . . .  11 I have become unreasonable. You compelled me to, for I ought to have been recommended by you. For I did not prove to be inferior to your superfine [the most esteemed?] apostles in a single thing, even if I am nothing. 12 Indeed, the signs of an apostle were produced among you with great endurance, and by signs and wonders and powerful works.

Note, too, that Paul has referred in context also to false apostles, not the Twelve apostles, as those presenting another sort of good news. But if the Corinthians are accepting such men as true apostles, then surely they should also accept Paul as an apostle. Paul feels that only his humility and unassuming demeanor has contributed to others seeing him as weak, and being able to subvert the good news, and for others to consider him as less than these other esteemed apostles. But Paul's response identifies them as those who are using both their Jewish background and the fact that they are also ministers of Christ, and apparently those who were also associated with signs and wonders and powerful works.

Again, I don't want to imply that Paul thought of any of the Twelve as "false" apostles, but that Paul was against the supposed authority that false apostles were claiming in the name of Peter or James for example. James and Peter should have known better than to have ever sided with the "false brothers" from Judea. It was evidently due to the fact that these reputable men in Jerusalem had made mistakes that Paul pointed out that Peter stood CONDEMNED for going along with this kind of HYPOCRISY. We also know that Paul and Barnabas broke up after the Acts 15 meeting, and it, of course, was primarily over taking John Mark with them. But remember too that this was just after Barnabas himself had joined Peter in the hypocrisy. (Might also be of interest that John Mark is traditionally defined as the person associated with Peter as his writer and thus produced the gospel of Mark.)

Edited to add: But more to the point in Corinthians, Paul appears to admit that those who are tearing them down (from the upbuilding gospel Paul gave) are doing so out of their apparent "authority" and prominence in terms of being well-known. And having known Jesus in the flesh. 

• (2 Corinthians 10:8) 8 For even if I should boast a bit too much about the authority that the Lord gave us to build you up and not to tear you down,. . .

• (2 Corinthians 5) 11 Therefore, since we know the fear of the Lord, we keep persuading men, but we are well-known to God. However, I hope that we are well-known also to your consciences. . . .
  16 So from now on we know no man from a fleshly viewpoint. Even if we once knew Christ according to the flesh, we certainly no longer know him in that way.

• (2 Corinthians 10:12) . . .For we do not dare to class ourselves or compare ourselves with some who recommend themselves. . . .

  (2 Corinthians 10:14, 15) . . .for we were the first to reach as far as you with the good news about the Christ. 15 No, we are not boasting outside our assigned boundaries about the labors of someone else, but we hope that as your faith continues to increase, what we have done may be made to increase, within our territory.. . .

Could these latter verses mean that Paul understood Jewish territory (Peter's territory, Galatians 2:8) to be the circumcised in Corinth? Could Paul (who called them ministers of Christ) be recognizing the success of turning so many Jews to Christianity in that area? If so, Paul is not going to take credit for those increases (which could be from which those persons come, who say they belong to Peter, or perhaps even Apollos. 1 Cor. 1:12) Paul got there first, before men from Peter (or perhaps Peter himself) got there, but he doesn't encroach on their boundary.

Another point is that Paul might, in places, compare his own apostleship to others as superior because he was not chosen by Jesus in the flesh, as some other apostles were, but by the glorious, risen, Lord Jesus through a revelation. (Gal 1:1,12) There seem to be similar points made about Paul's revelations and visions in 1 and 2 Corinthians, too.