by free thought 48 Replies latest jw friends
The Watchtower being RBNS (Religious But Not Spiritual) is dead wrong when it says there are TWO hopes and TWO classes (FDS or clergy class, versus "other sheep" or laity class). When Jesus was speaking about the "other sheep" he was talking about the gentile believers whom he would soon call.
According to Eph 4:4-6:
One body
one spirit,
one hope
one Lord,
one faith,
one baptism;
one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all.
Consider the actual meaning of "IDENTITY".
For something or someone to EXIST it can and must be only what it is. This is a contrast. What it ISN'T is now clearer.
If there were only one living person in all the universe there would arise no need whatsoever for that being to possess the distinguishing characteristic of a NAME.
A Name distinguishes one from another. Existence would BE identity.
A Being who could be anything would not be itself. Self distinguishes FROM all other.
If that is clear in your mind...continue...
If there were only two such beings, should we suppose they'd give each other names so that they are not confused as to who is whom?
Silly enough question. Something would IDENTIFY one from the other. But, what?
Being of the same substance or "stuff" as your Parent (Supreme Being) you'd only differ by your ranking (when you were created, i.e. 1st, 2nd, 3rd, so on in the case of other siblings.)
To EXIST is to BE something. Not OTHER.
For a thing to exist apart from its identifying characteristics is a logical contradiction!
A square Triangle, for example. It means nothing. The sound of one hand clapping....means nothing. It disinhibits the rational functionality of mind.
To introduce existing thingsAPART from their identity is the first step toward destroying your thinking and concept forming aspect of intelligence!
To identify the first Son of God (when others also exist) requires an order in the flow of time. (1st,2nd,3rd)
Were the Trinity doctrine correct, an IDENTITY would not remain possible. Why? God would BE and NOT BE characteristics of specific identity simultaneously.
Example:
For a Parent to (pro)create a son requires that the parent actually exist prior to that son. Were they co-existent one could not "parent" the other.
Instead of IDENTIFYING the son by distinguishing one from the other--the identity FAILS utterly. Like a square Triangle it means nothing.
For Jesus to be the "First" born of all creation would IDENTIFY him characteristically and distinguish him for what he IS and what he IS NOT.
Is Jesus an IDENTITY? If "yes" he cannot be his own parent. Why? Because the Parent would then BE the child and both the term "Parent" and the term "child" would be destroyed as logical meanings.
What about (finally) MICHAEL?
If MICHAEL has identity as an ARCHangel (head of) angels what are the characteristics of that identity?
Would it be necessary to ALSO BE an Angel himself, or, merely HEAD OF them?
I could be a Cub Scout leader without being a boy who is a Cub Scout, could I not?
But, for Jesus to BE Michael...logically...Michael could never be DIFFERENT in any way FROM Jesus.
Otherwise, we have our square triangle again.
Either words have meaning or they do not. Words can only mean what they mean (identifying)...or else..by meaning "other" they cease to function.
There seems to be confusion between a son of God and the Son of Man. I was confused. The Witnesses never made a distinction that I can remember. My college prof stressed how they are very different. God has many sons in the OT. Almost every king of Israel was a son of God as were many prophets. The son of man is a unique, messianic figure. Jesus' claim to fame is not that he was a son of God but that he was equated with his references to Son of Man. I don't recall that he ever said I am the Son of Man. He seemed to speak of someone else if you go by the Bible text. Perhaps he was referring to himself. The lack of clarity led to Christological debates. This what I recall from many years ago.
If someone knows this in more detail, I hope they will post.
*************There seems to be confusion between a son of God and the Son of Man. I was confused. The Witnesses never made a distinction that I can remember.**************
Who was the forth person?
KJV> Daniel 3:25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NIV >He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
Barnes notes>
The "fourth" personage now so mysteriously added to their number, it is evident, assumed the appearance of a "man," and not the appearance of a celestial being, though it was the aspect of a man so noble and majestic that he deserved to be called a son of God.
Barnes has gone with the NIV version saying that the fourth personage was in human appearance but not angelic .I would be interested in hearing Barnes explanation as to the King James version.
Trinity theory states that Christ was mentioned several times in the OT. and that the title “Son of God “ is exclusive to Christ only. So one could conclude that Daniel saw God! But how can this be! No one can see God.
JW’s believe that the fourth personage was that of an angel most likely Michael arch angel"Son of God "as Christ Jesus.
If one is to find common ground, then one could agree that the forth identity, personage or otherwise was Gods Glory personified.
Like Daniel ,Isaiah saw Gods glory.
No one can see God.
Exodus 24:9-11 (NIV): "9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank."
Since we have NONE of the original autograph writings of bible writers we DON'T KNOW what actual words were written under inspiration.
It also means we have words somebody else wrote!
What is the difference between Elvis and Elvis impersonators? Are they more-or-less the same thing?
What is my point? We cannot prove anything using PROOF TEXTS because we have Elvis impersonators and not the real Elvis.
Our ability to correctly identify the ACTUAL meaning of words we don't have is based on words IMPERSONATING original meaning.
It is a poor distortion that may carry a sort of similarity---or not.
In my own lifetime I've witnessed this in recent history.
During the Cold War between America and Soviet Russia a terrible misunderstanding arose because of a U.N. interpreter's translation during Premiere Khruschev's speech. The headlines in the newspaper repeated this faulty translation WE WILL BURY YOU!!
Americans were angered and frightened that Khrushev was telling Americans the Communists were determined to destroy us all!!
PLEASE READ the following and consider what a difference in translating ACTUAL WORDS into SIMILAR words can DISTORT MEANING:
"We will bury you!" ( transliterated as My vas pokhoronim!) was a phrase famously used by Sovietpremier Nikita Khrushchev while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow on November 18, 1956. [1] [2] [3]
The actual verbal context was: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in". In his subsequent public speech Khrushchev declared: "[...] We must take a shovel and dig a deep grave, and bury colonialism as deep as we can". [4] Later, on August 24, 1963, Khrushchev remarked in his speech in Yugoslavia, "I once said, 'We will bury you,' and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you," [5] a reference to the Marxist saying, "The proletariat is the undertaker ofcapitalism", based on the concluding statement in Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto: "What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable". Khrushchev repeated this Marxist thesis at a meeting with journalists in the U.S. in September 1959. However many Americans interpreted the quote as a nuclear threat. [6]
Terry, that reminded me of the mistranslation of German-Austrian downhill ski racer Franz Klammer's comment's about American racer Bill Johnson -
"nasenboerer". It was taken by the press to mean nose picker or snot eater. It was later explained to mean "snot-nosed kid". In other words, Johnson was an upstart in downhill skiing and had not paid his dues.
It was still a pretty bad insult - and I think Kruschev's statements in a public diplomatic body were still a pretty bad insult.
Bill Johnson still won his race, BTW. So did the U.S.
OK - back on the Michael topic: Does anybody else except me remember reading that only the JWs and the Adventists ever thought up this nutty idea of Jesus being Michael? Also - does anybody else share my theory: That the Michael/Jesus identity may be a manifestation of the JW hatred of the idea that Jesus was a personification of the deity?
OH, how the "we will bury you" terrified me. When John F. Kennedy when to Berlin and said "ich.....Berliner," it was not cleared with German experts. He said, I am a German pastry. No wonder the crowd went wild. Imagine if he said I am a croissant or I am a brioche.
I've read how a war could start with the problem of translating literally. They spend a lot on acquiring translators who can translate with nuance.
Kruschev taking his shoe off and banging it in the General Assembly was worse than "we will bury you."
[Warning!! Smart-aleck post ahead!!]
It's like the recently-converted Jehovah's Witness follower of "Jesus" - Prince!!
First he was "Prince", then he became "The Performer Previously Known As 'Prince' "...
THEN he became "Prince" again!!!
It's a miracle!!! "Prince" is modelling what actually happened with Jesus/Michael, so that we can all understand the changeover!!!
Noo lite!! Noo lite!!!
Zid
It's a miracle!!! "Prince" is modelling what actually happened with Jesus/Michael, so that we can all understand the changeover!!!
He is also modeling what happened with Judge Rutherford - who was never really a judge, but just called himself that out of his own pride.
Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas = real judge.
Charles of Windsor = real prince.
Rutherford = NOT real judge.
Prince = NOT real prince.
Jesus = NOT archangel Michael, not at least by any known ancient text.
