Happy 2019!

Just a note wishing all my readers a Happy New Year and all the best for 2019!

A special "thank you" to those who read and share my blog. I do have a few projects I hope to get to in 2019, including a series of articles on Vincent of Lerins and whether his theology supports Roman Catholicism (his belief in the development of doctrine has been cited by Newman and others to support the Catholic understanding of the development of doctrine).

I also hope to write a book addressing both baptism and the Eucharist, though that might end up as either a book dedicated to each topic and/or a book discussing the full topic of soteriology with Eucharist and baptism being lengthy sections therein.

As usual, I will be sharing interesting excerpts from books I am reading.

If you wish to support this blog, you can always make a donation via Paypal and/or Gofundme (and/or if one wishes to send an Amazon voucher, my email is IrishLDS87 AT Gmail dot com)

Jerome D. Quinn on Titus 3:5 and Baptismal Regeneration

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by washing of regeneration (διὰ λουτροῦ παλιγγενεσίας), and renewing of the Holy Ghost. (Titus 3:5)

Titus 3:5 is strong biblical evidence for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. In his commentary on Titus, Jerome D. Quinn offered the following comments on this verse, particularly the phrase “by washing of regeneration” and how such teaches that water baptism, in the theology of the author, is the instrumental means God uses to regenerate people:

“saved us through a washing of regeneration and a renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Literally, “through a bath (dia loutrou) of regeneration (paliggenesias) and of renewal (anakainōseōs) of the Holy Spirit.” Before loutrou A reads the article, probably in order to harmonize this phrase with the preceding to eleos autou. A variety of Western witnesses (D*, F, G, L, b, d, g, Lcf., Ambst., etc.) read “through (dia) the Holy Spirit” (see 2 Tim 1:14), possibly under the influence of the preceding dia loutrou as well as dia Iesou Christou in the verse that follows. The reading would insure that the final terms of this chain of genitives would be read in an instrumental sense (see J.K. Elliot, Greek Text, p. 191).

“Through a washing”: The instrumental dia here is parallel in meaning to dia Iesou Christou in the next verse. For the dozen uses of dia in the Timothy correspondence, see 1 Tim 2:10, 15; 4:5, 14; 2: Tim 1:1, 6, 10², 14; 2:2; 3:15; 4:17. “Washing,” loutron, occurs otherwise in the NT only in Eph 5:26 of Christ “having cleansed [the church] by the washing (tōi loutrōi) of water with the word.” In the LXX loutron means the bath for cleansing sheep (LXX Cant 4:2; 6:6) and the Jewish ritual washing after touching the dead in Sir 34:25. The word does not appear in T. 12 Patr. Or the Ap. Frs., but Justin uses it in alluding to this passage in Titus or its source (Apology 1.61 [PG 6.420-21]; see Irenaeus, Adversus haereses 5.3 [PG 5.15.3]; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 2.16 [PG 6.1077]). (Jerome D. Quinn, The Letter to Titus: A New Translation and Commentary and An Introduction to Titus, I and II Timothy, the Pastoral Epistles [AB 35; New York: Doubleday, 1990], 194)

If there was a baptismal hymn behind [Titus 3:4-7] (and the resemblances to 1 Pet have suggested the hypothesis), it has been freely reshaped in the tradition, probably the liturgical tradition for baptism, to form a prose, didactic prayer (an oratio, as the Roman rite called such compositions in Latin liturgy). The author of Titus cited the rolling cadences of a single sentence from that prayer, which in turn may have taken up and amplified a prior hymnic confession by the church assembled for baptism (the schema that remains to this day in the Easter Eve baptismal eucharist in the Roman rite is Scripture reading, hymnic response, oration). The insertion of another pistos logos into the center of the great thanksgiving prayer of 1 Tim 1:12-17 may be modelled on the prayer context suggested for this passage in Titus. G. Cuming (“EYCHēS, p. 81, discussing an elusive phrase in Justin, Apology 1.66.2) has proposed that logos in that phrase means “a form/patter of words” proper to a particular prayer of thanksgiving (see 1.13.1). A Gelston (“Euchēs,” pp. 172-175) has reservations about other aspects of Cuming’s evidence, but a prayer formula cited here in Titus would support Cuming’s case. In any case, the practices of ancient formal rhetoric adequately account for the form of the citation in Tutus without recourse to a much more problematic poetic source (see Lash, “Hymn-Hunting,” pp. 293-297, with its reference to Marrou, Education, p. 197). (Ibid., 211, comment in square bracket added for clarification)

More basis for the P[astoral]E[pistles] is the verb sōizein. A baptismal paraenesis later in Titus contains the only use of this verb in the letter. It describes how “our savior, God . . . saved us, no thanks to any upright deeds that we performed ourselves but because of (kata) his own mercy, saved us through a washing of regeneration and of renewal by the Holy Spirit that he poured our lavishly on us, through (dia) Jesus Christ, our savior. God’s was the grace (tei ekeinou charity) that made us upright (Titus 3:4-7). For the PE the action of saving is ultimately an act of God as ho theos, the Father (c. 1 Tim 2:3-4 with 2 Tim 1:8-9). Precisely because of the relationship in which Jesus stands to the Father, he too can be the subject of sōizein (1 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 4:18). (Ibid. 305, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

Jerome Neyrey on Jude 4

Jude 4 reads as follows:

For certain intruders have stolen in among you, people who long ago were designated for this condemnation as ungodly, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. (NRSV)

The parallel passage in 2 Peter reads thusly:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord (δεσπότης) that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. (2 Pet 2:1)

Commenting on the meaning of “master” (δεσπότης) and “Lord” (κύριος) in Jude 4, Jerome Neyrey wrote:

Paul regularly used the followers of Jesus to confess him as Lord (Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 12:3; Phil 2:11). Here we deal with “denial,” the antonym of confession (Mayor, The Epistles of St. Jude, 72); certain people “deny our Master and our Lord.” Naturally “master” (despotēs) refers either to the head of the household, who has absolute rights over his family and slaves (2 Tim 2:21; Titus 2:9; 1 Pet 2:18), or to a ruler with sovereign power, such as the Roman emperors. It was used of Greek deities and the Hebrew God, especially in terms of God’s absolute sovereignty and omnipotence (Josh 5:14; Wis 6:7; Job 5:8). Both the Greek Xenophon and the Jew Josephus remark on the reservation of the term “master” for the Deity: “To no human creature do you pay homage as master (depostēn), but to the gods alone” (An. 3.2.13; see Josephus, B.J. 7.418-19). It is striking, then, that Jesus begins to be acclaimed by a term reserved for the most powerful earthly and heavenly rulers (K. Rengstorf, “Despotēs,” TDNT 2.44-47).

In the honor/shame culture of antiquity, honor must be shown a “master,” either the head of the household or the sovereign. Honor shown an earthly master redounds to the honor of the heavenly master: “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed” (1 Tim 6:1). Shame, then, accompanies the denial of a master’s power and sovereignty. This is aptly illustrated by the treatment of David’s messengers sent to Hanum, the son of Nahash. Instead of receiving them honourably, the king of the Ammonites shaved off half their beards and cut their clothes in half, defending them home naked below the waist (2 Sam 10:4). David was thus publicly insulted by the treatment accorded his messengers. The story in 2 Sam 10 records David’s honorable avenging of this insult to his messengers. Josephus records, moreover, that many Jews faced torture rather than acclaim the Roman emperor as “master”: “Under every form of torture and laceration of body, devised for the sole object of making them acknowledge Caesar as mater (despotēn), not one submitted” (B.J. 7.417). In this case, they honored God as sole Master, for to acknowledge Caesar would compromise the exclusive honor of God.

If the scoffers in Jude are members of the church, they cannot be denying Jesus as Peter did (Mark 14:68, 70) or like certain Jerusalem Jews (Acts 3:13-14). If it is a theological situation imagined, their “denial” may be a rejection of some aspect of his honorable role and status, as the Exodus Jews denied Moses’ authority (Acts 7:35). 2 Peter interprets this very phrase in terms of denial of Jesus’ authority and power to judge, namely a denial of theodicy. The precise nature of the denial here seems impossible to specify, for Jude may simply interpret this “denial” as an honor challenge to those who claim to be Jesus’ “servants” or agents. Jesus is denied when his agents are rejected, just as the king is shamed when his messengers are maltreated (Matt 22:5-7; Mark 12:2-9). Or it could just as well be his polemical and even exaggerated interpretation of their behaviour. We find many references to faith being denied because of evil deeds or failure to act according to Jesus’ tradition (1 Tim 5:8; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:16; see 2 Clem 17:7; 1 Enoch 38:2; 45:2; 48:10). Whether theoretical or behavioral, such “denial” and shame will in turn be met with denial or judgment by Jesus through the lens of honor and shame. Ideally, group-orientated persons will honor or profess loyalty to their patrons and benefactors, while denying themselves (Luke 9:23). Living lives worthy of their calling, they will thereby confess the sovereignty of their master and his teaching. Denying their master either in confession or behaviour, they shame him. Indeed any shaming of one’s lord and master may be interpreted as denial. (Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 56-57, emphasis added)

Elsewhere, Jude denotes the Father as the only true God, which should serve to temper how to interpret v. 4:

To the only God (μόνῳ θεῷ) and Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (Jude 25, NRSV)

As Neyrey notes (Ibid., 100) such a confession parallels other texts where the person of the Father alone is said to be “true God” and other like-terms (Mark 12:32; John 5:44; 17:3; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:15-16). For a discussion of such passages and more in light of biblical and Latter-day Saint theology, see, for e.g.:

Refuting Jeff Durbin on “Mormonism”

Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Jerome Neyrey on Jude 5 and the Pre-existence of Jesus

Commenting on the textual variation in Jude 5 (whether it was Jesus [Ἰησοῦς] or the Lord [ὁ κύριος] who, after saving the Israelites, in Exodus would later destroy many of them due to their sins in the wilderness, Jerome Neyrey wrote:

Yet a case can be made for reading “Jesus” here. I enjoys a weightier and more frequent textual attestation than the alternative readings; and it is the more difficult reading, with a presumption in its favor for this very reason. Although Metzger’s committee (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 726) considers this reading “difficult . . . to the point of impossibility,” the readings of “Jesus” is hardly as theologically awkward as some claim. There is an early stream of Jewish-Christian christology which saw Jesus active and operative events described in the Old Testament. First, Paul reflects a very early Christian reading of an Exodus tradition where Christ was present and active in that Old Testament vent (1 Cor 10;4; possibly also in Heb 11:26-28). In several places, the Fourth Gospel states that Abraham, Jacob, and Isaiah saw Jesus (8:56; 12:4; see J. H. Neyrey, “The Jacob Allusions in John 1:51,” CBQ 44 [1982]:578-89). Such a christology is found in Jewish-Christian circles, as witnessed by the Pharisee Paul, the Fourth Gospel, and Justin Dial. 11:3; 120.3. Inasmuch as the scoffers “deny our only master and lord Jesus Christ.” “Jesus” should give a riposte to this honor challenge. It must be admitted that if the original reading was “Lord,” the author could still have understood this figure as Jesus, in accord with the Jewish-Christian stream of christology noted here. (Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 61-62)

Therefore, in Jude’s christology, Jesus personally pre-existed.

On the topic of universal personal pre-existence, see:

The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence

  

Jerome Neyrey on 2 Peter 1:20-21

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (2 Pet 1:20-21, 1995 NASB)

Commenting on the teachings about inspiration and scripture in this passage, Jerome Neyrey wrote:

The issue in 1:20-21, however, is not the source of prophecy but its interpretation. The claim is made that the author’s interpretation is correct (i.e., “inspired”), but no rationale is given. Yet the understanding of tradition for a group-oriented culture can illuminate how a correct interpretation can be known. The author appeals to traditions about both God’s judgment and Jesus’ parousia. He appeals to this tradition in regard to the prophecies being disputed when he “reminds you of the predictions by the holy prophets and the command of the Lord through your apostles” (3:2). Even Paul supports these (3:15—16). Thus his interpretation of the prophecies can be measured according to group norms; his vision is truly in accord with that has been proclaimed semper, ab omnibus, ubique, always, by all, and everywhere. It accords, moreover, with Scripture as alluded to in 2:4-9 and 3:5-7 and with dominical traditions (3:10-12). Although some oracle-mongers tailored their materials to leave out threatening prophecies (Thucydides 2.8.2; 2.21.3; 8.1.1), Paul criticizes those who say “Peace and security” (1 Thess 5:2). Hence, if distortion took place in the selection and presentation of oracles, it tended to be in the omission of disturbing material, which is not the case with 2 Peter. Thus the claim is made to know the collective, wisdom of the group and to adhere to it. The author’s interpretation is not self-serving or idiosyncratic. (Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 37C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 182)

Philo on Korah’s Rebellion and the Priesthood

And, having elected as chief of their conspiracy the eldest of their body, who also, with a few of those who joined in this audacious folly, was the leader of the whole enterprise, they left the outer courts and precincts of the tabernacle and entered into the most holy places, expelling those who, by the oracular commands of God, had been thought worthy of the priesthood. (De praemiis et poenis, 75)

And before now some persons, wishing to be kings instead of doorkeepers, and to put an end to the most beautiful thing in life, namely order, having not only failed in obtaining the success which they hoped to meet with through injustice, but have even been compelled to part with that which they had in their hands; for the law tells us that the companions of Korah, who coveted the priesthood, lost both what they wished for and what they had: (De fuga et inventione, 145)

 For a discussion of Korah's rebellion and Jude 11, and how such supports the existence of an ordained New Covenantal Priesthood, see pp. 72-75 of my book

After the Order of the Son of God: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for Latter-day Saint Theology of the Priesthood

One can also pursue my The LDS Priesthoods: Resource Page for a listing of articles on the Priesthood.

James F. Wathen vs. Joachim Jeremias' claim that Aramaic did not have a word for "All" only "Many"

While I enjoy much of Joachim Jeremias’ book, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus, one of the biggest errors therein is Jeremias’ claim that Aramaic did not have a word for “all,” only “many.” This is reminiscent of the bogus claim made by some Catholics that Hebrew and Aramaic did not have a word for “uncle” or “aunt.”

Responding to Jeremias on this point, James F. Wathen wrote:

The doctor found this out all by himself—I mean, altogether by himself—for absolutely no one else knows about it not even the Hebrews, nor the Arameans, who would have sworn that they did have words to express the ideas represented in our language by the words “all” and “many!” (Our Lord spoke Aramaic. The word He would have used for all in this language is: kol, or kola; the word He would have used for many is: ‘saggi’an.)

Even though St. Matthew and St. Mark both spoke Our Lord’s vernacular tongue of Aramaic, they are both supposed to have made the identical error, neither one daring (or knowing enough) to correct the other. Apparently no one in the Apostolic Church caught the mistake. Nor did any of the early Church Fathers, none of the Doctors of the Church, none of the Popes, not one of the great Schoolmen of the Middle Ages, no one in the whole wide world except one Joachim Jeremias. In fact, to this very day, he alone knows of this mistake, for his all-but-divine revelation has failed to impress scholars, both true and false. Witness, not a single translation of the Bible (the countless ones for which this deeply pious age has suddenly found a need) with all their unheard of, outrageous, and heterodox turns of phrases—not a single one of them, I say—indicates acceptance of this crack-pot theory that since Christ our God, the “Word made flesh,” did not have a way, could not devise a way, to say “all,” He had to be satisfied with saying “many” and waiting two thousand years for Dr. Jeremias to explain it for Him.

His explanation means, of course, that the word should be “all,” not “many,” in the following scriptural passages: “All are called, but few chosen.” (Mt. 20:16). And, “The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto but to minister, and to give his life a redemption for all.” (Mt. 20:28). Speaking of the time of the Great Tribulation, Jesus meant to say, “for all [everybody!] will come in my name saying: I am Christ: and they will seduce all [everybody!].” (Mt. 24:5). (James F. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege: A critical essay on the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI with particular reference to its moral impact and ramifications [Rockford, Ill.: Tan Books and Publishers, 1971], 101, italics in original)

James F. Wathen on the Deposal of a Heretical Pope

In a critical study of the Novus Ordo Missae (the Mass of Paul VI), Catholic priest James Wathen discussed the deposition of a (materially and/or formally) heretical pope that I found to be interesting, as it is a topic that has resulted in many opinions among Catholics, within the mainstream, Traditionalist, and even Sedevacantist camps (his comments about excommunication is also important to those who may be familiar with the debate about the validity of the Thuc consecrations, too):

The widespread notion that anyone who incurs “ipso facto excommunication” is thereby out of the Church (i.e., no longer a member) and therefore loses all ecclesiastical offices, dignities, etc., is based on a fundamental misconception: “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic” is a valid principle. “Anathema sit” does not mean that the Church thereby excludes a person altogether; but the subject may not participate in the life of the Church, that is, receive any of the Sacraments of the Living, or participate in liturgical ceremonies, take part in the Church functions, etc. As regards any offices, they are lost through a canonical condemnation only. Loss of an ecclesiastical office occurs immediately upon a declaration of “excommunicatus vitandus” (“excommunicated and to be avoided” ) by the Pope himself. Obviously the Supreme Pontiff cannot incur this censure. (Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici. Nos. 2256-67). Cardinal Journet explains that the Church cannot depose a Pope, no matter how wicked he may be because there is no authority above the Papacy. God Himself must do it. (Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, Vol. 1, pp. 425-26). If he is a heretic the Church can declare him “worthy of disposition.” “The Church’s action is simply declaratory; it makes the fact plain that an incorrigible sin of heresy exists; then the authoritative action of God disjoins the Papacy from a subject who, persisting in heresy after admonition, becomes in divine law, inapt to retain it any longer.” (Ibid. p. 484). These words do not mean that the Church, i.e., the bishops in council, have the power to deprive even an heretical Pope of his office and jurisdiction. They mean that the Church may use every moral means to force his abdication or prevent his acts from causing too great confusion and scandal. The defenders of the Faith in such a case would have to urge the people to pray, either for the Pontiff’s conversion or for his direct removal by God, while they warned the people that his teachings were pernicious. From all this it can be seen that an individual Catholic or group of Catholics cannot decide that a Pope is “worthy of deposition” let alone already deposed. (James F. Wathen, The Great Sacrilege: A critical essay on the Novus Ordo Missae of Pope Paul VI with particular reference to its moral impact and ramifications [Rockford, Ill.: Tan Books and Publishers, 1971], 21-22, n. 6, italics in original)

Andrew Skinner on the Cross in Latter-day Saint Theology

While Latter-day Saints do not display crosses (not just crosses with the body/corpus of Christ on it), and, further, we reject the Second Council of Nicea’s dogmatic [and false] teachings on icons/images (part of dogmatic theology of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), this should not be taken, as it is by many misinformed critics, that Latter-day Saints are “enemies of the cross” (Phil 3:18). On this issue, LDS scholar Andrew C. Skinner wrote:

For Latter-day Saints, the symbol of the cross of Christ is as important, is as much a part of our theology, as it is for other Christians. Though latter-day prophets, under divine inspiration, have chosen not to display or portray material representations of the cross (icons) in our buildings of worship, the symbol of the cross of Christ still buds us to do as Christ did:

1. To forgive all men (D&C 64:10)

2. To extend mercy to others—that we may obtain mercy (3 Nephi 12:7; D&C 88:40)

3. To put others before ourselves and serve one another (Mosiah 2:17)

4. To take up our crosses and follow him (Matthew 10:38; Luke 9:23)

5. To endure all things with patience and dignity (D&C 67:13; 1 Peter 2:23)

The image of the cross of Christ lies at the heart of the foundational document of our religion—the Book of Mormon. In describing his early visions, the prophet Nephi testified that he “saw that [the Lamb of God] was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world” (1 Nephi 11:33). But the capstone testimony regarding the cross came approximately six hundred years later when another Nephi reported the New World visitation of the very God of whom Lehi’s son Nephi had prophesied. He resurrected Lord Jesus Christ affirmed to his American Israelites that he had come into the world to do his Father’s will: “My Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil” (3 Nephi 27:14) . . . . In the dispensation of the fulness of times, President Joseph F. Smith received a panoramic vision of the spirit world and the Savior’s ministry to it. The Savior did not go in person to preach the everlasting gospel unto the wicked and rebellious (D&C 138:20-21). Messengers from among the righteous in the spirit world went instead (D&C 138:30-31). “It was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross” (D&C 138:35). Thus we see that the cross was preached beyond the veil. (Andrew C. Skinner, Golgotha [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], 183-84, 185-86)

Further Reading:

Latter-day Saints and Religious Images

Michael G. Reed, Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo (John Whitmer Historical (John Whitmer Books, 2012)

Andrew Skinner on the Father's Withdrawal from the Son (Matthew 27:46)

Commenting on the reasons for the Father’s withdrawal from Jesus at the cross (Matt 27:46), LDS scholar Andrew Skinner wrote the following:

 . . . another factor also influenced the Savior’s death: the withdrawal of the Father’s Spirit and power. The Father’s Spirit is pure life and light, especially the intensity or extent to which Jesus enjoyed it. As the Joseph Smith Translation says in John 3:34, “For God giveth him [Jesus] not the Spirit by measure, for he dwelleth in him, even the fulness” (emphasis added). In short, Jesus was able to die because the Father completely withdrew his life-giving, life-sustaining influence and powers.

Thus, there is another reason for the Father’s withdrawal from his Son. Besides the need for the Son to descend below all things, besides the requirement that Jesus suffer spiritual death and hell, besides the need for him to know all our circumstances in order to be able to succor us according to the flesh, the Father withdrew from Jesus so that he, the Son, could have the sole power to determine from his own death. “The Savior of the world was left alone by His Father to experience, of His own free will and choice, an act of agency which allowed Him to complete His mission of the Atonement” (Hales, “Behold, We Count Them Happy Which Endure,” 75). (Andrew C. Skinner, Golgotha [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2004], 165-66, emphasis added)

Harold B. Lee on Baptismal Regeneration and Other Effects of Water Baptism

  

Baptism by immersion symbolizes the death and burial of the man of sin; and the coming forth out of the water, the resurrection to a newness of spiritual life. (Harold B. Lee, Ye are the Light of the World: Selected Sermons and Writings of President Harold B. Lee [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1974], 220)

Harold B. Lee on Children Before the Age of Accountability Being Tempted by Satan

While discussing the importance of informed, capable teachers in the Church and their importance in the development of the youth of the Church, Harold B. Lee made the following comment showing that children, before the age of accountability, can be tempted by Satan and temptation, even if such will not be imputed to them due to lacking full reasoning skills and responsibility: 

Many of our little children begin attending Sunday School and Primary before they have been subjected to the temptations of Satan—before the age of accountability and shortly thereafter. (Harold B. Lee, Ye are the Light of the World: Selected Sermons and Writings of President Harold B. Lee [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1974], 94, emphasis added)

Brittany Chapman Nash, “An Act of Religious Conviction: Mormon Women and Nineteenth-Century Polygamy”

FairMormon just posted the audio and transcript to an interesting talk by Brittany Chapman Nash,:

An Act of Religious Conviction: Mormon Women and Nineteenth-Century Polygamy

Evidences for the Book of Mormon: Names

Book of Mormon Central has posted a new video featuring Kwaku El (one of the hosts of Saints Unscripted [PKA "3 Mormons"] who also debated [and defeated] Aaron Shafovaloff in a debate earlier this year)

Evidences for the Book of Mormon: Names

This is a topic I have discussed a bit, too, including:

Slides to my fireside (August 2016) Authentic Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon

Zelph on the Shelf vs. Jershon

Answering a critic on Book of Mormon Onomasticon

Responding to a critique of Tad Callister's October 2017 General Conference Talk

Notes on Greek Names in the Book of Mormon

Allegedly Anachronistic Greek Words in the Book of Mormon

For a book-length discussion of just some of the "hits" in the Book of Mormon vis-a-vis the names therein, see:

Matthew L. Bowen, Name as Key-Word: Collected Essays on Onomastic Worldplay and the Temple in Mormon Scripture

Carl H. Jacob on The Gospel and Person of Jesus Being the Only True Hope of Everlasting Peace

The following is from a book I read today. As we just recently celebrated Christmas and the birth of Jesus Christ, I think it is apropos as it highlights the fact that only true lasting peace will result in one embracing the only true Gospel:

Surely, God does not delight in war and destruction, and he never has. Jesus Christ, in whom “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,” and who is the “express image” of the Father, is the “Prince of Peace.” He is the “day spring from on high” who Zacharias said (Luke 1:78, 79) “hath visited us to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet in the way of peace.”

The answer is found in the fact that the Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of Peace and is the only path to permanent peace. Men can live together in real peace only on true principles of brotherhood, and true principles of the brotherhood of man are part of the true knowledge of the fatherhood of God. This true knowledge of the fatherhood of God is revealed only in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

To live together in peace in peace men must change and rid themselves of lustful and self-seeking tendencies and lose themselves in lives of selfless service to their fellow men. This change of attitude or “conversion” is essential. It is motivated by the love of God which is known fully only through the life and atoning death of God’s “Only Begotten Son” whom He gave “that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (Carl H. Jacob, Superbombs, Saints and Scriptures [Rexburg, Idaho: Monitor Publishing Co., 1959], 31)

Carl H. Jacob and Rejection Theological Ecumenism

Those who know me are aware that I lament how many members of the Church have imbibed the relativism of our times, including religious indifferentism and movements in some quarters towards theological ecumenism. Such has been a factor in the erosion, among many members of the Church, in attitudes about important social and moral issues (e.g., here in Ireland, 50%+ of Church members in Dublin voted in favour of legalising abortion up until the 12^th week of gestation).

The following, written in 1959, shows the proper attitude Latter-day Saints should have, one that eschews ecumenism and such indifferentism. The author, Carl H. Jacobs, at the time of writing was the head of the Journalism Department at Ricks College (later BYU-Idaho) and, prior to that, taught in the seminary system of the Church:

[T]here is no neutrality as far as churches are concerned. There is one true Church and the rest are not true, hence—false. This may seem like strong doctrine, but these are the words of an angel:

[1 Nephi 14] 10. And he said unto me: Behold there are two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God; and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

So, the “great and abominable church” is not just one church; it is all of them save the true Church of Jesus Christ. And one of the most “abominable” things about these churches is that they haven’t remained neutral to let the true Church alone to flourish by itself; rather, they have fought against it.

The angel told Nephi this would happen and would be the reason for people failing to grasp the “great and marvelous work”:

11. And it came to pass that I looked and behold the whore of the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

12. And it came to pass that I beheld the church of the Lamb of God, and its numbers were few, because of the wickedness and abominations of the whore who sat upon many waters, nevertheless, I behold that the church of the Lamb, who were the saints of God, were also upon all the face of the earth; and their dominions upon the face of the earth were small, because of the wickedness of the great whore whom I saw.

13. And it came to pass that I beheld the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the ace of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God.

This is not talking about an actual armed conflict, but rather mainly persecution from the pulpit and through the press—the spreading of misrepresentation and outright lies about the restored Church of Christ. And so, as he said of the religious leaders of old, Jesus could say of these modern rejects of His revelations (Matthew 23):

13. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye that are entering to go in.

Jesus strongly dislikes hypocrisy. As a man He made a scourge of small cords and drove the hypocrites from the temple. As the Risen Christ and God of this earth, He will scourge modern-day hypocrisy more thoroughly for the neglect of His latter-day word, (D. & C. 84).

95. Wo, I say again, unto that house, or that village or city that rejecteth you, or your words, or your testimony of me;
96. For I, the Almighty, have laid my hands upon the nations, to scourge them for their wickedness.

97. And plagues shall go forth, and they shall not be taken from the earth until I have completed my work, which shall be cut short in righteousness.

These plagues will come on the earth as a consequence of Christianity’s rejection of Christ’s latter-day “marvelous work and a wonder,” which has been by them “esteemed as a thing of nought.” And not the least of these plagues will be war—horrible war with devouring fire  . . We must admit that relatively few people in America have heard the real story of Mormonism. Most history texts used in our schools scarcely mention the Mormons. Undoubtedly there are many honest persons who would readily accept the Restored Gospel if they had the chance to learn the truth. Nevertheless (as we pointed out [above])) there is one main reason why more do not receive the marvelous message—the Christian churches, so called, have fought against it from the beginning. (Carl H. Jacob, Superbombs, Saints and Scriptures [Rexburg, Idaho: Monitor Publishing Co., 1959], 16-48, 98; comments in square brackets added for clarification)

Peter Kreeft, Is There Sex in Heaven?

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft (who has done great work against abortion) has an interesting (and provocative) article:

Is There Sex in Heaven?

While he rejects the belief there will be marriage in heaven (see: Defending Latter-day Saint theology about Eternal Marriage), he writes the following:

Everything on earth is analogous to something in Heaven. Heaven neither simply removes nor simply continues earthly things. If we apply this principle to sexual intercourse, we get the conclusion that intercourse on earth is a shadow or symbol of intercourse in Heaven. Could we speculate about what that could be?

It could certainly be spiritual intercourse—and, remember, that includes sexual intercourse because sex is spiritual. This spiritual intercourse would mean something more specific than universal charity. It would be special communion with the sexually complementary; something a man can have only with a woman and a woman only with a man. We are made complete by such union: "It is not good that the man should be alone." And God does not simply rip up His design for human fulfillment. The relationship need not be confined to one in Heaven. Monogamy is for earth. On earth, our bodies are private. In Heaven, we share each other's secrets without shame, and voluntarily. In the Communion of Saints, promiscuity of spirit is a virtue.

One should pursue the entire article (and don't worry, it is very "clean" in language and content).

Luke 22:19 and the use of the present participle διδομενον

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and break it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given (διδομενον) for you: this do in remembrance of me. (Luke 22:19)

Commenting on the use of the διδομενον, the present passive participle of διδωμι ("to give"), Roman Catholic Max Zerwick, S.J. wrote:

διδομενον ptc. pass., pres. ptc may den. “which is being given” or replace fut. ptc, “which is to be given, which will be given”, cf. 1:35. (Max Zerwick, A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament [trans. Mary Grosvenor; rev ed.; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981], 270-71, emphasis added)

Such is reflected in the Roman Catholic New American Bible which translates Luke 22:19 as:

Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me."

With respect to Luke 1:35 which Zerwick references, the text reads thusly:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

"Shall be born" translates γεννώμενον, the present passive participle of γενναω ("to beget"), yet the begetting of Jesus (whether one takes this to refer to the conception of Jesus or the birth, it does not matter for our discussion here), is a then-future event! It was not happening at the very moment the angel Gabriel was speaking these words to Mary. Notwithstanding the participle being in the present tense, it is only proper to translate it, per its context, in the future tense.

This is important as some Roman Catholic apologists focus on the use of present participles such as διδομενον as evidence that, at the very Last Supper itself, Jesus was giving his body to the apostles to consume, after uttering the words of consecration, under the species of bread (and, in light of the dogma of Concomitance, the wine, too). As one Catholic apologist wrote about the use of διδομενον:

[Indicates] that the action of “being given for you” is happening presently, that is, the body is being given to the Apostles at the time Jesus is speaking the words of consecration at the Last Supper. (Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 128, emphasis added)

Such, however, flies in the face of Greek exegesis and grammar. 

For related articles, including the use of another participle ἐκχυννόμενον ("being shed/poured out") in Matt 26:28, see:

Was Christ's Blood Shed at the Last Supper?

Another note on the use of the present participle in the Last Supper Accounts

The Last Supper was not a Propitiatory Sacrifice

Keith Mathison on the Language of the Last Supper and the Nature of a "Sacrament"

Overview of the Sedevacantist "Popes"

John Salza and Robert Siscoe, on their Website for their book True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors, has a good overview of Sedevacantist/Conclavist Popes (or "Anti-Popes" from their [SSPX] perspective that accepts Francis as a true pope [albeit, while resisting much of his and other teachings from Vatican II onwards]):

Meet the Sedevacantist Anti-Popes

Be sure to reference this page whenever a Roman Catholic says, with a straight face, that embracing Rome will never result in any confusion.

Modern Latter-day Saints and the Establishment of the Eschatological Zion

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause and do many things for their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; for the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned (D&C 58:26-29)

In response to the claim that Latter-day Saints cannot build Zion until the president of the Church commands such, one author wrote the following which is insightful into how we should be living our daily lives:

[T]rue . . .sort of. We aren’t obligated to build Zion. In 1888, Bishop Orson F. Whitney concurred:

The command of Noah to build an ark does not make it obligatory upon you or me to build one. This Church is based upon immediate and direct revelation. It is what God says today, not what He said yesterday to someone else, that must be considered. We must not take the dead letter and with it judge the living oracle. We must not sit in judgment upon God and say, “I can not do this, because yesterday you told someone else to do differently.” We can only escape His wrath by being willing to do everything that He requires at our hands, and acknowledge His hand in all things.

About our non-obligation, Elder Abraham O. Woodruff (Wilford’s son), said in the October 1899 General Conference:

We ought to desire to build up the material Zion; and while we may not be commanded in these things, we should, as the revelation . . . says, be willing to do many things of our own free will and choice.

So, according to Elder Woodruff, we may not be obligated by commandment to build the “material Zion” but we can do it under the Good-Cause Clause of D&C 58:26-29.

Here’s the thing, “prophets, seers, and revelators” today HAVE called for Zion to be built. Have we heard the call? Consider these calls-to-action:

As we sing together “Come to Zion,” we mean . . . come to the word, the branch, the mission, the take, and give assistance to build up Zion.—President Spencer W. Kimball, Paris Area Conference, 1976.

My dear brethren and sisters, we must prepare to redeem Zion. It was essentially the sin of pride that keep us from establishing Zion in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was the same sin of pride that brought consecration to an end among the Nephites. Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. I repeat: Pride is the great stumbling block to Zion. We must cleanse the inner vessel by conquering pride.—President Era Taft Benson, April 1989 General Conference.

If we are to build that Zion of which the prophets have spoken and of which the Lord has given mighty promise, we must set aside our consuming selfishness. We must rise above our love for comfort and ease, and in the very process of effort and struggle, even in our extremity, we shall become better acquainted with our God.—Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1991 Conference.

If we would establish Zion in our homes, branches, wards, and stakes, we must rise to this standard. It will be necessary (1) to become unified in one heart and one mind; (2) to become, individually and collectively, a holy people; and (3) to care for the poor and needy with such effectiveness that we eliminate poverty among us. We cannot wait until Zion comes for these things to happen—Zion will come only as they happen. In our families and in our stakes and districts, let us seek to build up Zion through unity, godliness, and charity, preparing for that great day when Zion, the New Jerusalem, will arise.—Elder D. Todd Christofferson, October 2008 General Conference. (Jesse F. Fisher, Champions for Zion: Remarkable Teachings on Building Zion by Early LDS Leaders [2d ed.; 2018], 188-90)

An Emerging Quest For The Historical John McClane

The following is an excellent (and hilarious) parody of much "historical Jesus" studies:

An Emerging Quest For The Historical John McClane: A Proposal For Methodology In "Die Hard" Studies

BTW, Die Hard is a Christmas movie!

3 John 10 as evidence for Contingent Foreknowledge

In 3 John 10, we read the following:

Wherefore, if I come, I will remember [Diotrephes'] deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content with, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the Church.

"If I come" is a proper translation of the Greek ἐὰν ἔλθω, being composed of (1) ἐὰν, a marker of condition and (2) ἔλθω, the first person subjunctive active of ερχομαι. With respect to εαν being coupled with a verb in the subjunctive, one leading grammarian wrote:

This is the use of the subjunctive in the protasis of conditional sentences. The conditional element is made explicit by the particle ἐάν. Both the par­ticle (a combination of εἰ and the contingent particle ἄν) and the subjunc­tive give the condition a sense of contingency. This is a relatively common usage of the subjunctive, occurring nearly 300 times in the NT. (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pp. 469-70)

In essence, John, while inspired by the Holy Spirit and writing God-breathed (θεοπνευστος) revelation (cf. 2 Tim 3:16) did not have exhaustive but contingent foreknowledge about his then-future actions.

Origen vs. the Roman Catholic Interpretation of John 6

In a previous article I refuted the claim that in his Homilies on Exodus, Origen (185-254) supported the dogmatic Roman Catholic understanding of the Real Presence:

Did Origen teach Transubstantiation? 

Interestingly, in his commentary on John, Origen clearly does not lend support to the Catholic understanding of John 6 and its relationship to the Eucharist (i.e., the Eucharist being a propitiatory sacrifice and Jesus being present in a way that is akin to Transubstantiation as dogmatised in 1215). Here are two passages where Origen discusses John 6:

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, "I baptize with water, but He that cometh after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit." To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, (John 6:53) "Except ye drink My blood, ye have no life in you," and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, (Luke 12:50) "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished?" And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his Epistle (1 John 5:8) of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one. And again He declares Himself to be the way and the door, but clearly He is not the door to those to whom He is the way, and He is no longer the way to those to whom He is the door. All those, then, who are being initiated in the beginning of the oracles of God, and come to the voice of him who cries in the wilderness, "Make straight the way of the Lord," the voice which sounds beyond Jordan at the house of preparation, let them prepare themselves so that they may be in a state to receive the spiritual word, brought home to them by the enlightenment of the Spirit. As we are now, as our subject requires, bringing together all that relates to the Jordan, let us look at the "river." God, by Moses, carried the people through the Red Sea, making the water a wall for them on the right hand and on the left, and by Joshua He carried them through Jordan. Now, Paul deals with this Scripture, and his warfare is not according to the flesh of it, for he knew that the law is spiritual in a spiritual sense. And he shows us that he understood what is said about the passage of the Red Sea; for he says in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, (1 Cor 10:1-4) "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, how that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and the rock was Christ." In the spirit of this passage let us also pray that we may receive from God to understand the spiritual meaning of Joshua's passage through Jordan. Of it, also, Paul would have said, "I would not, brethren, have you ignorant, that all our fathers went through Jordan, and were all baptized into Jesus in the spirit and in the river." And Joshua, who succeeded Moses, was a type of Jesus Christ, who succeeds the dispensation through the law, and replaces it by the preaching of the Gospel. And even if those Paul speaks of were baptized in the cloud and in the sea, there is something harsh and salt in their baptism. They are still in fear of their enemies, and crying to the Lord and to Moses, saying,5 "Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou brought us forth to slay us in the wilderness? Why hast thou dealt thus with us, to bring us forth out of Egypt?" But the baptism to Joshua, which takes place in quite sweet and drinkable water, is in many ways superior to that earlier one, religion having by this time grown clearer and assuming a becoming order. For the ark of the covenant of the Lord our God is carried in procession by the priests and levites, the people following the ministers of God, it, also, accepting the law of holiness. For Joshua says to the people, (Josh 3:5) "Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow; the Lord will do wonders among you." And he commands the priests to go before the people with the ark of the covenant, wherein is plainly showed forth the mystery of the Father's economy about the Son, which is highly exalted by Him who gave the Son this office; "That at the name of Jesus (Phil 2:9-11) every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is pointed out by what we find in the book called Joshua, (Josh 3:7) "In that day I will begin to exalt thee before the children of Israel." And we hear our Lord Jesus saying to the children of Israel, (Josh 3:9, 10) "Come hither and hear the words of the Lord your God. Hereby ye shall know that the living God is in (among) you;" for when we are baptized to Jesus, we know that the living God is in us. And, in the former case, they kept the passover in Egypt, and then began their journey, but with Joshua, after crossing Jordan on the tenth day of the first month they pitched their camp in Galgala; for a sheep had to be procured before invitations could be issued to the banquet after Joshua's baptism. Then the children of Israel, since the children of those who came out of Egypt had not received circumcision, were circumcised by Joshua with a very sharp stone; the Lord declares that He takes away the reproach of Egypt on the day of Joshua's baptism, when Joshua purified the children of Israel. For it is written: (Josh 5:9) "And the Lord said to Joshua, the son of Nun, This day have I taken away the reproach of Egypt from off you." Then the children of Israel kept the passover on the fourteenth day of the month, with much greater gladness than in Egypt, for they ate unleavened bread of the corn of the holy land, and fresh food better than manna. For when they received the land of promise God did not entertain them with scantier food, nor when such a one as Joshua was their leader do they get inferior bread. This will be plain to him who thinks of the true holy land and of the Jerusalem above. Hence it is written in this same Gospel: (Josh 6:49) Your fathers did eat bread in the wilderness, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. For the manna, though it was given by God, yet was bread of travel, bread supplied to those still under discipline, well fitted for those who were under tutors and governors. And the new bread Joshua managed to get from corn they cut in the country, in the land of promise, others having laboured and his disciples reaping,--that was bread more full of life, distributed as it was to those who, for their perfection, were able to receive the inheritance of their fathers. Hence, he who is still under discipline to that bread may receive death as far as it is concerned, but he who has attained to the bread that follows that, eating it, shall live for ever. All this has been added, not, I conceive, without appropriateness, to our study of the baptism at the Jordan, administered by John at Bethabara. (Sixth Book, Section 26; ANF 9:372-73)

Elsewhere in his commentary, Origen wrote:

Again, we eat the flesh of the Lamb, with bitter herbs, and unleavened bread, when we repent of our sins and grieve with the sorrow which is according to God, a repentance which operates for our salvation, and is not to be repented of; or when, on account of our trials, we turn to the speculations which are found to be those of truth, and are nourished by them. We are not, however, to eat the flesh of the Lamb raw, as those do who are slaves of the letter, like irrational animals, and those who are enraged at men truly reasonable, because they desire to understand spiritual things; truly, they share the nature of savage beasts. But we must strive to convert the rawness of Scripture into well-cooked food, not letting what is written grow flabby and wet and thin, as those do who have itching ears, (2 Tim 4:3, 4) and turn away their ears from the truth; their methods tend to a loose and flabby conduct of life. But let us be of a fervent spirit and keep hold of the fiery words given to us of God, such as Jeremiah received from Him who spoke to him, (Jer 5:14) "Behold, I have made My words in thy mouth like fire," and let us see that the flesh of the Lamb be well cooked, so that those who partake of it may say, as Christ speaks in us, "Our heart burned by the way, as He opened to us the Scriptures." (Luke 24:32) Further, if it is our duty to enquire into such a point as the roasting of the flesh of the Lamb with fire, we must not forget the parallel of what Jeremiah suffered on account of the words of God, as he says: (Jer 20:9) "And it was as a glowing fire, burning in my bones, and I am without any strength, and I cannot bear it." But, in this eating, we must begin at the head, that is to say, at the principal and the most essential doctrines about heavenly things, and we must end at the feet, the last branches of learning which enquire as to the final nature in things, or about more material things, or about things under the earth, or about wicked spirits and unclean demons. For it may be that the account of these things is not obvious, like themselves, but is laid away among the mysteries of Scripture, so that it may be called, tropically, the feet of the Lamb. Nor must we fail to deal with the entrails, which are within and hidden from us; we must approach the whole of Scripture as one body, we must not lacerate nor break through the strong and well-knit connections which exist in the harmony of its whole composition, as those do who lacerate, so far as they can, the unity of the Spirit that is in all the Scriptures. But this aforesaid prophecy of the Lamb is to be our nourishment only during the night of this dark life of ours; what comes after this life is, as it were, the dawn of day, and why should we leave over till then the food which can only be useful to us now? But when the night is passed, and the day which succeeds it is at hand, then we shall have bread to eat which has nothing to do with the leavened bread of the older and lower state of things, but is unleavened, and that will serve our turn until that which comes after the unleavened bread is given us, the manna, which is food for angels rather than men. (Tenth Book, Section 13; ANF 9:390)

Again and again, when one examines early Christian sources, we find that distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas are not to be found in the earliest strata of Christianity, putting the lie to the popular claim that if one carefully studies early Christianity one is forced to embrace Roman Catholicism.

For more articles on the topic of the Mass, see:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)

The Problems with the the New World Translation's Rendering εγω ειμι in John 8:58 as "I have been"

In the New World Translation (NWT) of John 8:58, the verse is rendered thusly:

Jesus said to them: "Most truly I say to you, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been."

The NWT translates εγω ειμι, not as “I am,” but “I have been.” Needless to say, this is evidence of the NWT deliberately mistranslating a passage to side-step biblical evidence against their Christology.

Evangelical apologist, Michael R. Burgos, Jr., did a good job showing the NWT’s mistranslation in the following footnote to an essay critiquing Unitarian theologies:

The NWT’s non-literal rendering, “Before Abraham came into existence, I have been,” is highly problematic. The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society (WB&TS) has defended this reading by insisting that “Jesus’ reply logically dealt with his age, the length of his existence.” They further argued that A.T. Robertson supports such a reading from this quote: “The verb [eimi] . . . Sometimes it does express existence as a predicate like any other verb, as in [ego eimi] (Jo. 8:58).” Reasoning from the Scriptures, (Brooklyn,: WB&TS, 1985), 418. First, the translation turns the present active verb in to a perfect active with no exegetical or contextual warrant. The WB&TS claim that eimi is a present of past action in progress (PPA, sometimes called the “durative present”) is erroneous and is mitigated by the act that the verb is an absolute. A PPA verb serves “to describe an action which, begun in the past, continues in the present.” Wallace G[reek]G[rammar]B[eyond the]B[asics], 519. However, PPA verbs are always accompanied with an adverb of time or duration in the New Testament. In John 8:58, eimi isn’t accompanied by an adverbial phrase denoting time, but rather the verb serves only as an absolute verb of being (hence, “I am”). The NWT Study Edition cites John 14:9 in support of their assertion regarding John 8:58: τροσουτον χρονον μεθ’ υμων ειμι (“So long a time that I have been with you”). While this example follows the PPA construction perfectly, containing an adverbial phrase which indicates time, namely προσουτον χρονον, eimi at John 8:58 does not. Second, the correct translation (i.e., “Before Abraham was, I am”) serves by implication to indicate “the length of his existence,” or what Büchsel has called “supra-temporality.” TDNT, Vol. II, 399. Thus, the argument by the WB&TS doesn’t follow. Third, Robertson’s statement accords with the translation “I am,” and it does not in any way give credence to the NWT’s rendering. This is confirmed elsewhere by Robertson’s actual exegesis of John 8:58:

“Before Abraham came into existence or was born. I am” (egō eimi). Undoubtedly here Jesus claims eternal existence with the absolute phrase used of God.

Robertson. A.T., Word Pictures of the New Testament, Vol. 5, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1932), 158-59. It would seem therefore, that the WB&TS ‘cherry picked’ the quote from Robertson’s grammar, making it seem as though he agrees with a theologically driven mistranslation. (Michael R. Burgos, Jr., “I Am: Reducing Unitarian Argumentation to Ashes” in Michael R. Burgos, Jr., ed. Our God is Triune: Essays in Biblical Theology [Torrington, Conn.: Church Militant Publications, 2018], 176-99, here, p. 186-87 n. 34)