4 hours ago, KJW said:

JWs do not believe in the Trinity. Jehovah, his son, the angels, the 144000 after they have died and are resurrected, Satan, and the demons are all spirit entities. However, it's not exactly clear to me what it means to be "anointed with holy spirit". I have no experience that I can call upon and have no recollection of anyone who actually partook in the bread and wine. But, when Jesus was baptized, God's spirit descended upon him "like a dove" (Matthew 3:16), and his memory of his prehuman life in heaven returns to him. I imagine that being "anointed with holy spirit" would be like being infused with a tiny bit of God's power.

I knew they are non-Trinitarian, just not how they regard the Holy Spirit, so thanks for the explanation. Evidently they reinterpret "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God", as mentioned in the gospels, as "holy spirit" [without definite article], meaning a sort of power dispensed from God, but not a distinct entity. Well that could make sense, I suppose, though the definite article does seem to accompany the mention of "holy spirit" each time, I think. Interesting, anyway.

Edited October 5Oct 5 by exchemist

30 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I knew they are non-Trinitarian, just not how they regard the Holy Spirit, so thanks for the explanation. Evidently they reinterpret "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God", as mentioned in the gospels, as "holy spirit" [without definite article], meaning a sort of power dispensed from God, but not a distinct entity. Well that could make sense, I suppose, though the definite article does seem to accompany the mention of "holy spirit" each time, I think. Interesting, anyway.

Newton was a unitarian. which held his progress back in the Cambridge heirarchy (though not in Physics or Maths) as he could not take Holy Orders.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I knew they are non-Trinitarian, just not how they regard the Holy Spirit, so thanks for the explanation. Evidently they reinterpret "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God", as mentioned in the gospels, as "holy spirit" [without definite article], meaning a sort of power dispensed from God, but not a distinct entity. Well that could make sense, I suppose, though the definite article does seem to accompany the mention of "holy spirit" each time, I think. Interesting, anyway.

I think it describes the moment of enlightenment, metaphorically one joins god and so no longer needs its guidance.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Newton was a unitarian. which held his progress back in the Cambridge heirarchy (though not in Physics or Maths) as he could not take Holy Orders.

Yes I know. Unitarianism has a long history, back to the c.16th, i.e. they appeared as part of the upheaval of the Protestant Reformation.

But JWs were only set up in the c.19th in the United States, as were the Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons and Christian Scientists, seemingly from the DIY culture of American Protestants of the time.

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Newton was a unitarian. which held his progress back in the Cambridge heirarchy (though not in Physics or Maths) as he could not take Holy Orders.

Given his proclivity towards the mysterious, we're lucky he settled on gravity as the, sort of, answer; we could all be obsessed with creating gold... 🙃

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

I knew they are non-Trinitarian, just not how they regard the Holy Spirit, so thanks for the explanation. Evidently they reinterpret "the Holy Spirit" or "the Spirit of God", as mentioned in the gospels, as "holy spirit" [without definite article], meaning a sort of power dispensed from God, but not a distinct entity. Well that could make sense, I suppose, though the definite article does seem to accompany the mention of "holy spirit" each time, I think. Interesting, anyway.

I'm well out of my depth here, but according to my recollection of what my mother told me concerning a particular discussion she had in the field ministry (and verified by the internet for this post), the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article, and this can impact how an English translation of the New Testament is interpreted. I should remark that JWs as an organisation are very much into scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language.

5 minutes ago, KJW said:

I'm well out of my depth here, but according to my recollection of what my mother told me concerning a particular discussion she had in the field ministry (and verified by the internet for this post), the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article, and this can impact how an English translation of the New Testament is interpreted. I should remark that JWs as an organisation are very much into scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language.

Presume you mean definite article, i.e. “the” as opposed to the indefinite article “a”. Classical ancient Greek certainly has a definite article, as I remember from my schooldays. But I suppose there might not have been in the Koine Greek of the period of the gospel writers. In fact I found this which indicates there could be room for ambiguity: https://hellenisticgreek.com/07.html

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Presume you mean definite article, i.e. “the” as opposed to the indefinite article “a”.

No, I did mean indefinite article (which first century Greek did not have). The issue is whether an English translation of the Greek scriptures precisely describes the intention of the original writers. However, my knowledge is insufficient to continue this discussion.

10 minutes ago, KJW said:

I'm well out of my depth here, but according to my recollection of what my mother told me concerning a particular discussion she had in the field ministry (and verified by the internet for this post), the Greek language of the first century did not have an indefinite article, and this can impact how an English translation of the New Testament is interpreted.

The original language no longer exists, all anyone can do is take a best guess.

18 minutes ago, KJW said:

I should remark that JWs as an organisation are very much into scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language.

And there in lies the problem, I'm not saying JWs aren't smart, but the many ways the scriptures have been divided; should lead to a scholarly understanding of misunderstanding...

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And there in lies the problem, I'm not saying JWs aren't smart, but the many ways the scriptures have been divided; should lead to a scholarly understanding of misunderstanding..

Like anyone, all they can do is present their case. However, JWs do adjust their teachings according to new knowledge they discover.

Just now, KJW said:

Like anyone, all they can do is present their case. However, JWs do adjust their teachings according to new knowledge they discover.

And long may it continue, with certain caveats...

1 hour ago, KJW said:

. I should remark that JWs as an organisation are very much into scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language

Not my experience. All of my interactions via street stall discussions, home visits and interaction with two work colleagues over 20 years, illustrated an ignorance of any sort of scholarship regarding scripture.

They were all literalists and the "Watchtower" publications regarding claims about life and the Univers,e were scientifically illiterate garbage and lies.

22 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

Not my experience. All of my interactions via street stall discussions, home visits and interaction with two work colleagues over 20 years, illustrated an ignorance of any sort of scholarship regarding scripture.

They were all literalists and the "Watchtower" publications regarding claims about life and the Univers,e were scientifically illiterate garbage and lies.

You can do scholarly textual analysis of the bible without getting into whether it should be interpreted literally or not.

Interpretation is another matter and on that I'd have to agree with you that the JWs are literalists - and thus creationists (YECs).

41 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You can do scholarly textual analysis of the bible without getting into whether it should be interpreted literally or not.

Ok I will rephrase. All of the JW who have come to my house or I have encountered have shown no awareness of scholarship, or even named any scholars.

1 minute ago, pinball1970 said:

Ok I will rephrase. All of the JW who have come to my house or I have encountered have shown no awareness of scholarship, or even named any scholars.

Sure. But then one wouldn't expect the average mainstream Christian to be particularly scholarly either. The comment was about "scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language", referring to the JW organisation, not the individuals you and I may have encountered on the doorstep (who indeed don't seem generally very well educated, at least in my part of London). So it was pretty narrowly defined.

I lived briefly on the edge of an Adventist community (surrounding an Adventist college). They were pretty quiet (Adventists really don't do the drinking/wild party thing in college) and there was an excellent vegetarian grocery by the campus, so that compensated somewhat for their stupid beliefs - you wouldn't want to study geology or evolutionary biology at an Adventist college. On the matter of Rapture, they reject the standard scenario (with the pre-tribulation grab) and instead believe in a physical Second Coming of JC after the tribulation period, which is loud (trumpets) and globally withessed. Jesus rallies all his followers and then loads them into sky buses or saucers or whatever is used for transport to Heaven. No empty pants or cars up on the sidewalk or any people just blinking out of existence while showering and the hideous waste of municipal water supplies that would follow.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

JWs are literalists - and thus creationists (YECs).

Not quite. For example, JWs do not believe in six 24-hour days of creation. Each day of creation was 7000 years long, and we are about 6000 years into the seventh day. Also, the earth and universe existed before the six days of creation, so JWs have no problem with the notion that the earth is billions of years old.

4 minutes ago, KJW said:

Not quite. For example, JWs do not believe in six 24-hour days of creation. Each day of creation was 7000 years long, and we are about 6000 years into the seventh day. Also, the earth and universe existed before the six days of creation, so JWs have no problem with the notion that the earth is billions of years old.

That’s curious, so the Earth itself can be old, although the Genesis creation sequence would make the creation of the sun, for instance, come about only 42,000 yrs ago. But OK I admit I’ve never gone into JW beliefs in this much detail before. And it’s probably unfair to keep quizzing you about stuff from years ago.

I used to hate it when KWs used to come to my door and I'd have to engage for some time in religious banter. Out of respect, of course, since they went to all the trouble of dressing up in crisp white shirts and prim/proper dresses ( men in shirts, women in dresses to be clear ).

I finally had enough, and answered the door in my underwear ( back when I was a lot more buff, of course ), and they've never come back since.

I do hope it wasn't members of your household, @KJW

9 hours ago, KJW said:

I should remark that JWs as an organisation are very much into scholarly analyses of the scriptures in the original language.

Unfortunately some of that scholarly analysis is distinctly idiosynscratic, most notably in respect  of the JWs attitude towards the crucifixion and the use of the cross in Christian worship.

From their official website :

Many people view the cross as the universal symbol of Christianity. Although Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians, we do not use the cross in our worship. Why not?

 One reason is that the Bible indicates that Jesus did not die on a cross but rather on a simple stake. Moreover, the Bible strongly warns Christians to “flee from idolatry,” which would mean not using the cross in worship. —1 Corinthians 10:14; 1 John 5: 21.

https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/faq/cross-belief

The basis of this curious doctrinal position is the JWs interpretation of the Koine Greek word  Σταύρος stauros - which they insist means a vertical stake or pole without a horizontal cross beam, and they maintain this view in spite of copious evidence from Latin sources such as Tertullian (c. 155-225 AD) who describe both crucifixion and its early Christian symbolism in some detail.

The Catholic.com website makes the point that this JW belief wasn’t even originally part of the movement’s foundational 19th century teaching:

Oddly enough, this belief was not present in the earliest doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their second president, Joseph Rutherford, taught, “The cross of Christ is the greatest pivotal truth of the divine arrangement, from which radiate the hopes of men.”[1] It was not until the late 1930s that Rutherford changed the Witnesses’ position on this issue.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jehovahs-witnesses-and-the-cross

1 hour ago, toucana said:

The basis of this curious doctrinal position is the JWs interpretation of the Koine Greek word  Σταύρος stauros - which they insist means a vertical stake or pole without a horizontal cross beam, and they maintain this view in spite of copious evidence from Latin sources such as Tertullian (c. 155-225 AD) who describe both crucifixion and its early Christian symbolism in some detail.

If they used the same type of crucifixion in Judea as was used in Rome/Italy at the time, they would have used a 'T' shaped pole, with minimal, if any, extension above the horizontal section; certainly not a cross, and with usually no nails piercing the hands/wrists.

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion - Biblical Archaeology Society

Same as for the records of the crucifixion of Spartacus ( although no contemporary records exist, but were written much later ) and his followers in the slave revolts along the Appian Way, and is accurately depicted in movies, etc.

Not sure where/when the idea of the cross symbol originated.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

If they used the same type of crucifixion in Judea as was used in Rome/Italy at the time, they would have used a 'T' shaped pole, with minimal, if any, extension above the horizontal section; certainly not a cross, and with usually no nails piercing the hands/wrists.

Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of Crucifixion - Biblical Archaeology Society

Same as for the records of the crucifixion of Spartacus ( although no contemporary records exist, but were written much later ) and his followers in the slave revolts along the Appian Way, and is accurately depicted in movies, etc.

Not sure where/when the idea of the cross symbol originated.

Judea was a Roman province governed by a praefectus called Pontius Pilate in the time of Christ. The crucifixion would have been carried out according to the Roman penal code which stipulated that the criminal’s arms be bound to a wooden transom called a patibulum that would then be attached to a vertical stake called a stipes, with the resulting cross being described as being in the shape of a Greek letter Tau by many sources.

The various types of cross used in Roman executions were described by the younger Seneca (c.4 B.C - AD65) :

Video istic cruces non unius quidem generis sed aliter ab aliis fabricatas : capite quidam conversos in terram suspendere, alii per obscena stipitem egerunt, alii brachia patibulo ex- plicuerunt ; video fidiculas, video verbera, et membris singulis articulis singula nocuerunt  machinamenta. At video et mortem. Sunt istic hostes cruenti, cives superbi; sed video istic et mortem. Non est molestum servire, ubi, si dominii pertaesum est, licet uno gradu ad libertatem transire. Caram te, vita, beneficio mortis habeo !

Seneca  - De Consolatione ad Marciam  VI. XX. III

"I see before me crosses not all alike, but differently made by different peoples: some hang a man head downwards, some force a stick upwards through his groin, some stretch out his arms on a forked gibbet. I see cords, scourges, and instruments of torture for each limb and each joint: but I see Death also. There are bloodthirsty enemies, there are overbearing fellow-countrymen, but where they are there I see Death also. Slavery is not grievous if a man can gain his freedom by one step as soon as he becomes tired of thralldom. Life, it is thanks to Death that I hold thee so dear."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Consolation:_To_Marcia#XX.

Crucifixion was usually reserved for slaves or brigands. Six thousand followers of the slave revolt led by Spartacus were said to have been crucified all along the Appian way in 71 BC after their defeat. Early Christians avoided using iconography based on the crucifixion for this reason - because of its shameful and humiliating associations.

One of the earliest known images of the crucifixion is the Alexamenos graffito scratched into a plaster wall in Rome c. 200 AD which is a mocking depiction of Christians worshipping a donkey-headed man fastened to a cross.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexamenos_graffito

Edited October 6Oct 6 by toucana
corrected 'graffito'

We attended a Unitarian church after I was around 9, and I recall liking the replacement of a grisly execution as the primary church symbol with a flaming chalice. Most of the congregation were like my parents, lapsed Christians looking for a spiritual meeting that drew from multiple religions and was agnostic on the nature of deity. (This was the Universalist branch, which is the main one in the States)

Isaac Asimov sometimes attended the UU church we attended in the Boston area. Once, chasing a fellow young hooligan around the parish hall, I stepped on Dr Asimov's foot. We both skidded to a halt, and I apologized. Asimov laughed and said, it's okay I step on them all the time.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

We attended a Unitarian church after I was around 9, and I recall liking the replacement of a grisly execution as the primary church symbol with a flaming chalice. Most of the congregation were like my parents, lapsed Christians looking for a spiritual meeting that drew from multiple religions and was agnostic on the nature of deity. (This was the Universalist branch, which is the main one in the States)

Isaac Asimov sometimes attended the UU church we attended in the Boston area. Once, chasing a fellow young hooligan around the parish hall, I stepped on Dr Asimov's foot. We both skidded to a halt, and I apologized. Asimov laughed and said, it's okay I step on them all the time.

That's bascally my position on the subject, it seems to me to be the most stable platform from which to interpret the various Bible's, e.g. I can forgive myself for being jealous as fuck, as long as I didn't, actually, wring your neck... 🙂

10 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's bascally my position on the subject, it seems to me to be the most stable platform from which to interpret the various Bible's

Better than the gallows trapdoor, which has often been a less stable platform from which some last-moment interpretations are made. 😉