Hellenism and all christians

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm differentiating that a cultural influences doesn't equate an entire personality makeover into a new religion.

Huh? Who's asserting that?

So observing how much the Greek culture transformed the world doesn't mean that all humans have pagan beliefs in their thoughts and beliefs. You could say that in our day the internet culture is transforming peoples and cultures.

And certain beliefs and ideas and themes and tropes can easily be traced to our current culture, just like certain beliefs and ideas and themes and tropes can be traced back to Greek culture.

[Won2blv]

I'm differentiating that a cultural influences doesn't equate an entire personality makeover into a new religion.

Huh?  Who's asserting that?

So observing how much the Greek culture transformed the world doesn't mean that all humans have pagan beliefs in their thoughts and beliefs. You could say that in our day the internet culture is transforming peoples and cultures.

And certain beliefs and ideas and themes and tropes can easily be traced to our current culture, just like certain beliefs and ideas and themes and tropes can be traced back to Greek culture.

This is what Rhythms said,

"It's about the contention that by doing away with christmas, JW's have somehow managed to avoid the influence of one of the most dominating and long lasting cultural influences in all of history. Also known as: a desperate need to be different."

Its not that I am contending that I am still affected by hellenism but rather that I am saying you can be affected by cultural phenomena without it transforming who you are completely.

[The Grand Nudger]

You do not need to be transformed....you are -already- hellenized, as are we all. It's the starting point, not a destination, not your fault, not anything to do with you, personally. The christian god concept (as well as afterlives, hells, morality..etc) is, itself, -inherently- hellenistic, regardless of which denomination one chooses to follow or was born under. There is no shame in this, it is not -wrong- to hold to these viewpoints...but it is, simultaneously, -wrong- to criticize others -for it-...or pretend that it does not apply to ones own sect.

[Metis]

1. Read the wikipedia page. The most critical are religious figures that have biases of their own. Less biased scholars do criticize for certain aspects but give it an overall good rating for being literal and conservative. The main word that gets added is Jehovah for Kyrios. At some points it makes perfect sense because it'll be in a reference to an OT scripture that used YHWH but sometimes it might have been a bit of a stretch. I will give you that. But it only serves the purpose of the noun or proper noun not the actual context of the scripture. Oh and something being the first result on google is not exactly a proof of its validity

Can you show me a link to a scholar that accepts the NWT as a good translation because as a theologian I can tell you know if I brought a copy of that thing to a debate I'd be laughed out the door. Nobody except Jehovas Witnessess use it because it diverges so greatly from the language used within both the Septuagint and the Masoertic texts.

I'm not saying this as some fundamentalist preacher who only wants you to use the good ol' King James (that's also a terrible translation by the way, stick to to the NIV or the Douay-Rheims unless you're debating Orthodox where you'll need the extra OT books; I use the Amharic for that but that's purely because it contains almost every book used by the different Orthodox groups which have their own canons but for everything else the NIV or the Douay-Rheims is excellent).

I picked it because when I typed in Jehovas Witnessess it was the only one that didn't say the JW religion was a cult. Do you deny any of the points contained within, I felt they were rather valid.

2. No where in the NWT is a scripture stated that Michael is Jesus. Its a doctrinal issue only. JW's believe that they are the same person. So that is bunk to claim that we changed the scriptures to suit that belief

Ah, I never said it was scriptural. We're talking about pagan influence right? I'm saying the doctrine of Michael as Jesus is proof of pagan influences.

Origen was the only Church Father to even hint that reincarnation was a Christian belief and he was almost unanimously condemned later as a heretic for it. Reincarnation of Michael as Jesus is not a Christian doctrine. It supposes that Angels can become Humans or vice versa (condemned by the early chuch) as well as the metamorphosis of spirit (also a heresy to every other Christian denomination).

We can also move onto the JW belief that the soul is mortal, which is also not a traditional Christian belief and owes more to later outside factors.

3. Again look up the wiki for stauros. In classical greek it wasn't never used for 2 pieces of wood at a cross. It did later have that identity but there is debate on whether or not it was the method for execution when Jesus was on earth. And what the writers were even referring to. Regardless though, even if Jesus died on a cross it would never be condoned to worship that image. Especially when many scholars have acknowledge that the religious symbol is an amalgamation of the pagan ankh. So it wouldn't make a difference to JW's ultimately whether or not he died on a cross but it seems like some would have a biased reason to make it a biblical "truth"

I'm a scholar and I say that's total hookum. The Ankh was later adopted by the Coptic Orthodox Church as a national symbol but by nobody else, and even they use it sparingly because they fear it might give people the wrong impression. The cross was used as a tool of execution by the Italians long before they established regular direct contact with Egypt.

We have plenty of Classical accounts that affirm that when Romans crucified people they did it with a cross, not a stake. It's not as humiliating or debilatating to be stood upright as you die, but if you're spead eagled it hurts a hell of a lot more and you don't die as fast either.

You're also assuming that Catholics/Orthodox worship the cross which they do not. When you see a picture of yourself are you looking at you or just a depiction of you? It's the same for an image of a saint, you might gaze upon it during prayer but you're not praying to the picture, you're praying to whoever you have in mind. Otherwise you better not look at a table when you pray, you might be worshiping the table!

Really, I'd love to see who all these scholars are and if they're Jehovas Witnesses or not. Of all the Christian denominations studied in my uni department JW's are probably taken the least seriously and that's been true of everywhere I've ever taught or studied.

4. Yeah sorry but those were all pretty useless. Jehovah is the most common know rendition of the tetragrammaton. That is why JW's use it. It isn't exactly the most important thing as to whether or not it is the correct one. We don't know the original pronunciation of his name. Those references didn't address the point you're making which I believe is that Jehovah a syncretism of Zues or Jupiter or Jove. Or that Jehovah and Yahweh are 2 separate entities. Hint, if they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same

It doesn't gurantee they share an etymology, but in this case they undoubtedly do. Why do Jews who say the word today (I know Orthodox/Conservative ones never do) never say Jehova in their scholarly works? Why do they always use Adonai, occasionally Kyrios or most commonly Yahweh?

The Watchtower society has incorperated many more non-christian influences into their theology than the other Christians have ever accomplished. Joseph Smith tried to write his own "revision" of the Old and New Testaments and even he scrapped the idea because it was so nutty (hence why the Community of Christ Church formed, they used the scraps Joe Smith gave up on and that the LDS reject today).

[Won2blv]

1. Read the wikipedia page. The most critical are religious figures that have biases of their own. Less biased scholars do criticize for certain aspects but give it an overall good rating for being literal and conservative. The main word that gets added is Jehovah for Kyrios. At some points it makes perfect sense because it'll be in a reference to an OT scripture that used YHWH but sometimes it might have been a bit of a stretch. I will give you that. But it only serves the purpose of the noun or proper noun not the actual context of the scripture. Oh and something being the first result on google is not exactly a proof of its validity

Can you show me a link to a scholar that accepts the NWT as a good translation because as a theologian I can tell you know if I brought a copy of that thing to a debate I'd be laughed out the door. Nobody except Jehovas Witnessess use it because it diverges so greatly from the language used within both the Septuagint and the Masoertic texts.

I'm not saying this as some fundamentalist preacher who only wants you to use the good ol' King James (that's also a terrible translation by the way, stick to to the NIV or the Douay-Rheims unless you're debating Orthodox where you'll need the extra OT books; I use the Amharic for that but that's purely because it contains almost every book used by the different Orthodox groups which have their own canons but for everything else the NIV or the Douay-Rheims is excellent).

I picked it because when I typed in Jehovas Witnessess it was the only one that didn't say the JW religion was a cult. Do you deny any of the points contained within, I felt they were rather valid.

2. No where in the NWT is a scripture stated that Michael is Jesus. Its a doctrinal issue only. JW's believe that they are the same person. So that is bunk to claim that we changed the scriptures to suit that belief

Ah, I never said it was scriptural. We're talking about pagan influence right? I'm saying the doctrine of Michael as Jesus is proof of pagan influences.

Origen was the only Church Father to even hint that reincarnation was a Christian belief and he was almost unanimously condemned later as a heretic for it. Reincarnation of Michael as Jesus is not a Christian doctrine. It supposes that Angels can become Humans or vice versa (condemned by the early chuch) as well as the metamorphosis of spirit (also a heresy to every other Christian denomination).

We can also move onto the JW belief that the soul is mortal, which is also not a traditional Christian belief and owes more to later outside factors.

3. Again look up the wiki for stauros. In classical greek it wasn't never used for 2 pieces of wood at a cross. It did later have that identity but there is debate on whether or not it was the method for execution when Jesus was on earth. And what the writers were even referring to. Regardless though, even if Jesus died on a cross it would never be condoned to worship that image. Especially when many scholars have acknowledge that the religious symbol is an amalgamation of the pagan ankh. So it wouldn't make a difference to JW's ultimately whether or not he died on a cross but it seems like some would have a biased reason to make it a biblical "truth"

I'm a scholar and I say that's total hookum. The Ankh was later adopted by the Coptic Orthodox Church as a national symbol but by nobody else, and even they use it sparingly because they fear it might give people the wrong impression. The cross was used as a tool of execution by the Italians long before they established regular direct contact with Egypt.

We have plenty of Classical accounts that affirm that when Romans crucified people they did it with a cross, not a stake. It's not as humiliating or debilatating to be stood upright as you die, but if you're spead eagled it hurts a hell of a lot more and you don't die as fast either.

You're also assuming that Catholics/Orthodox worship the cross which they do not. When you see a picture of yourself are you looking at you or just a depiction of you? It's the same for an image of a saint, you might gaze upon it during prayer but you're not praying to the picture, you're praying to whoever you have in mind. Otherwise you better not look at a table when you pray, you might be worshiping the table!

Really, I'd love to see who all these scholars are and if they're Jehovas Witnesses or not. Of all the Christian denominations studied in my uni department JW's are probably taken the least seriously and that's been true of everywhere I've ever taught or studied.

4. Yeah sorry but those were all pretty useless. Jehovah is the most common know rendition of the tetragrammaton. That is why JW's use it. It isn't exactly the most important thing as to whether or not it is the correct one. We don't know the original pronunciation of his name. Those references didn't address the point you're making which I believe is that Jehovah a syncretism of Zues or Jupiter or Jove. Or that Jehovah and Yahweh are 2 separate entities. Hint, if they sound the same doesn't mean they are the same

It doesn't gurantee they share an etymology, but in this case they undoubtedly do. Why do Jews who say the word today (I know Orthodox/Conservative ones never do) never say Jehova in their scholarly works? Why do they always use Adonai, occasionally Kyrios or most commonly Yahweh?

The Watchtower society has incorperated many more non-christian influences into their theology than the other Christians have ever accomplished. Joseph Smith tried to write his own "revision" of the Old and New Testaments and even he scrapped the idea because it was so nutty (hence why the Community of Christ Church formed, they used the scraps Joe Smith gave up on and that the LDS reject today).

You can go to the wikipedia page and look up the quotes from there. I am not denying that there are some criticisms. But I just don't think that you're complete dismissal is valid. And what is the Amharic? I thought that was an Ethiopian language

I have never said that Michael is a reincarnation of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus would be the archangel AKA Michael. Its not uncommon in the scriptures for kings and rulers or even apostles to have different names used for them.

The cross is worshipped and viewed as a holy relic. And what it represents is similar to the way the egyptians would carry around an ankh as it represented the symbol of eternal life. If I look at a table when I pray it has not spiritual meaning. If I carved a piece of wood into a symbolic relic that represented my beliefs then I would be guilty of carving out false idols. In Isaiah a man is virtually mocked for taking a piece of wood and using half to cook his food and half to carve out and idol to worship. The point is not that god thinks that idol will actually become a deity but rather that our faith and worship should not be needing a visible tangible item to go along with it.

Jehovah is the most commonly known rendition for YHWH. Adonai is not a name and neither is kyrios. Yahweh is another separate rendition for YHWH. The fact that we don't use Yahweh is not a rejection of that but just a matter of convenience.

[Metis]

You can go to the wikipedia page and look up the quotes from there. I am not denying that there are some criticisms. But I just don't think that you're complete dismissal is valid. And what is the Amharic? I thought that was an Ethiopian language

It's also a version of their scriptures. The different Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches use different canons from both the Catholics and Orthodox for the OT, the Ethiopian Orthodox happens to be the largest so I can look to it for most of the books bar three which the Syriac churches use.

As for the wiki page they're really pretty dubious references, I certainly wouldn't advocate using them in an academic work for anywhere but a Jehovas Witness seminary.

I have never said that Michael is a reincarnation of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus would be the archangel AKA Michael. Its not uncommon in the scriptures for kings and rulers or even apostles to have different names used for them.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Michael existed before the NT for most Christians, he's mentioned in the Book of Jubilees (Orthodox books). At any rate even supposing he later became an angel that's even stronger down the road that Angels and Humans are related which the rest of Christianity strongly denies.

The cross is worshipped and viewed as a holy relic. And what it represents is similar to the way the egyptians would carry around an ankh as it represented  the symbol of eternal life.

I can tell you now no Christians worship the cross, Catholics especially go to great pains to deny this. Egyptians didn't carry around Ankhs either, the Ankh was a divine symbol of which only Gods depicted in art or the Pharaoh could carry. Anyone else who did it was executed.

If I look at a table when I pray it has not spiritual meaning. If I carved a piece of wood into a symbolic relic that represented my beliefs then I would be guilty of carving out false idols. In Isaiah a man is virtually mocked for taking a piece of wood and using half to cook his food and half to carve out and idol to worship. The point is not that god thinks that idol will actually become a deity but rather that our faith and worship should not be needing a visible tangible item to go along with it.

You're mistaking veneration for worship here, and the point that Christians don't expect the item to "do" anything. It's to help them pray in the sense that if they look at a picture of Jesus when praying to him they won't be so easily distracted. They don't expect the cross or a statue of Mary to have any powers to help channel their prayers.

Jehovah is the most commonly known rendition for YHWH. Adonai is not a name and neither is kyrios. Yahweh is another separate rendition for YHWH. The fact that we don't use Yahweh is not a rejection of that but just a matter of convenience.

Adonai and Kyrios both equate to "Lord", and Adonai most certainly is a name; I know someone with that surname. I know you guys don't reject the word Yahweh, but my point is Jehova is a later innovation, you'd think the Jews would know about the OT since they've had the most time to study it and even they don't use that word.

[Won2blv]

You can go to the wikipedia page and look up the quotes from there. I am not denying that there are some criticisms. But I just don't think that you're complete dismissal is valid. And what is the Amharic? I thought that was an Ethiopian language

It's also a version of their scriptures. The different Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches use different canons from both the Catholics and Orthodox for the OT, the Ethiopian Orthodox happens to be the largest so I can look to it for most of the books bar three which the Syriac churches use.

As for the wiki page they're really pretty dubious references, I certainly wouldn't advocate using them in an academic work for anywhere but a Jehovas Witness seminary.

I have never said that Michael is a reincarnation of Jesus. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus would be the archangel AKA Michael. Its not uncommon in the scriptures for kings and rulers or even apostles to have different names used for them.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure Michael existed before the NT for most Christians, he's mentioned in the Book of Jubilees (Orthodox books). At any rate even supposing he later became an angel that's even stronger down the road that Angels and Humans are related which the rest of Christianity strongly denies.

The cross is worshipped and viewed as a holy relic. And what it represents is similar to the way the egyptians would carry around an ankh as it represented  the symbol of eternal life.

I can tell you now no Christians worship the cross, Catholics especially go to great pains to deny this. Egyptians didn't carry around Ankhs either, the Ankh was a divine symbol of which only Gods depicted in art or the Pharaoh could carry. Anyone else who did it was executed.

If I look at a table when I pray it has not spiritual meaning. If I carved a piece of wood into a symbolic relic that represented my beliefs then I would be guilty of carving out false idols. In Isaiah a man is virtually mocked for taking a piece of wood and using half to cook his food and half to carve out and idol to worship. The point is not that god thinks that idol will actually become a deity but rather that our faith and worship should not be needing a visible tangible item to go along with it.

You're mistaking veneration for worship here, and the point that Christians don't expect the item to "do" anything. It's to help them pray in the sense that if they look at a picture of Jesus when praying to him they won't be so easily distracted. They don't expect the cross or a statue of Mary to have any powers to help channel their prayers.

Jehovah is the most commonly known rendition for YHWH. Adonai is not a name and neither is kyrios. Yahweh is another separate rendition for YHWH. The fact that we don't use Yahweh is not a rejection of that but just a matter of convenience.

Adonai and Kyrios both equate to "Lord", and Adonai most certainly is a name; I know someone with that surname. I know you guys don't reject the word Yahweh, but my point is Jehova is a later innovation, you'd think the Jews would know about the OT since they've had the most time to study it and even they don't use that word.

How about you just give me the specific examples of gross mistranslation?

And as far gods name goes I'd like to use a Ru Paul quote, "you can call me he, you can call me she, just as long as you call me"
God wants us to use his name and glorify it. I don't think the exact pronunciation matters

[Metis]

How about you just give me the specific examples of gross mistranslation?

1. Gen. 1:1-2--"In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
   Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters." (New World Translation, emphasis added).
   
   1. The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society denies that the Holy Spirit is alive--the third person of the Trinity. Therefore, they have changed the correct translation of " . . . the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters," to say " . . . and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters."
2. Zech. 12:10--In this verse God is speaking and says, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son." (Zech. 12:10, NASB).
   
   1. The Jehovah's Witnesses change the word "me" to "the one" so that it says in their            Bible, " . . . they will look upon the one whom they have pierced . . . "Since the Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus is (according to traditional theology) God in flesh, then Zech. 12:10 would present obvious problems--so they changed it.
3. John 1:1--They mistranslate the verse as "a god." Again, it is because they deny who Jesus is and must change the Bible to make it agree with their theology. The Jehovah's Witness version is this: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god."
   
4. Col. 1:15-17--The word "other" is inserted 4 times. It is not in the original Greek--nor is it implied. This is a section where Jesus is described as being the creator of all things. Since the Jehovah's Witness organization believes that Jesus is created, they have inserted the word "other" to show that Jesus was before all "other" things and implying that He is created.
   
   1. There are two Greek words for "other": heteros, and allos. The first means another of a different kind, and the second means another of the same kind. Neither is used at all in this section of scripture. The Jehovah's Witness have changed the Bible to make it fit their theology.
5. Heb. 1:6--In this verse they translate the Greek word for worship, proskuneo, as "obeisance." Obeisance is a word that means to honor, show respect--even bow down before someone. Since Jesus, to them, is created, then he cannot be worshiped. They have also done this in other verses concerning Jesus, i.e., Matt. 2:2, 11; 14:33; 28:9.
   
6. Heb. 1:8--This is a verse where God the Father is calling Jesus God: "But about the Son he says, 'Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.'" Since the Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with that, they have changed the Bible, yet again, to agree with their theology. They have translated the verse as " . . . God is your throne . . . " The problem with the Jehovah's Witness translation is that this verse is a quote from Psalm 45:6 which, from the Hebrew, can only be translated as " . . . Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom." To justify their New Testament translation they actually changed the OT verse to agree with their theology, too!
   

These are just a few.

And as far gods name goes I'd like to use a Ru Paul quote, "you can call me he, you can call me she, just as long as you call me"

God wants us to use his name and glorify it. I don't think the exact pronunciation matters

Try calling God "she" in an Orthodox Church. I seriously dare you 

More traditional branches of Christianity with perhaps some small exception to the really radical branches of Anglicanism and Lutheranism firmly reject referring to God as anything but the terms he lays out in the Bible. Jesus, Lord, Our Father, He. There's a few there but Jehova isn't one of them.