That is a very difficult question.
Um... 87?
How many ex-jws poster here now believe in Hellfire, immortality of soul, trinity, etc;
by booker-t 70 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Leolaia
Hello sabastious....Here is my take on this subject. I believe it is anachronistic and eisegetical to use the much later Christian doctrine of the Trinity as the exegetical key to understanding the OT concept of God. The writers of the various books of the OT did not hold a belief that was not developed until hundreds of years later. However there is also validity in at least some of the parallels you point to. And this is the thing: the notion of the Trinity did not spring up out of nowhere. It developed to a great extent through OT interpretation. And it isn't that it exists in the OT waiting to be discovered; it is that some of the ideas that specifically contributed to the development of trinitarian thinking derive in part from the OT itself. One of these concepts is the idea of plurality within God. Christians of the second century AD were very interested in this notion because it had the promise of resolving the tension between monotheism and the idea that the Son and the Father were both God while being distinct from each other. But the concept ultimately was a by-product of the development of monotheism itself. The movement from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism conflated deities together (not just in Israel but throughout the ANE), reducing pantheons from many gods to, ultimately, one single God. The identification of Yahweh with El (the god of the patriarchs) is one such conflation attested in the OT. When the stage of monotheism is reached, all divine attributes reside in a single deity but sometimes they were hypostasized or personified; this produces a plurality whether metaphorical (in the case of personification) or ontological (in the case of hypostatization). The most well-known example of this is personified Wisdom from Proverbs 8, and this text was highly influential source material in the development of both christology and the Trinity. Other attributes include the presence of God (< the Shekinah), the voice of God, the face of God, the name of God, the glory of God, and the word of God; each of these were also hypostasized and/or personified in later literature. Mark Smith in his book The Early History of God has a chapter on how some of the feminine attributes were transferred from Asherah to Yahweh when worship of the goddess (who became Yahweh's consort when Yahweh was conflated with El) was phased out, especially following the reforms of Josiah (pp. 108-147); similar hypostatizations existed in other West Semitic cults of the period, e.g. Astarte as the "name of Baal" and Tannit as the "face of Baal". In early Christianity, the Holy Spirit was the recipient of the attributes and feminine hypostatization ultimately traceable to the goddess (cf. for instance the reference to "my mother the Holy Spirit" in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which draws on a motif cognate to the heavenly woman myth found in Revelation 12). Orthodox rabbinical Judaism eschewed hypostatizations and labeled the "two powers in heaven" concept as a heresy; this represents true monotheism with its emphasis on the oneness of God. What was orthodox in Judaism became called "modalism" in Christianity, and the church fathers decided that modalism was a heresy precisely because it dissolved the distinctions needed by Christians to distinguish the Son from the Father (on this, see Daniel Boyarin's 2004 article in the Kugel festschrift).
I think it is possible that Genesis 1:26 may be understood in this light. It has a background in earlier polytheistic creation myths in the ANE which presume a plurality of gods; the ninth century BC Ashur creation narrative portrays the Annunaki saying to the each other "Let us create mankind" when they decide to create the first humans, and the Enuma Elish similarly presents the gods as making a decision to create people (Tablet VI). There is the old tradition of other divine beings present during the creation of the earth in Job 38:4-7. But P was no polytheist or even much of a henotheist; he ascribes to God alone the work of creation and he does not elsewhere mention the existence of other divine beings. So while he uses a traditional formulation the meaning is quite different. Throughout the entire narrative, God uses the jussive to issue commands to the external cosmos in order to design it: "let there be light" (v. 3), "let there be a firmament" (v. 6), "let the water under the sky be gathered into one place" (v. 9), "let the land produce vegetation" (v. 11), "let there be lights in the firmament of the sky" (v. 14), "let the water teem with living creatures" (v. 20), "let the birds increase on the earth" (v. 23), "let the land produce living creatures" (v. 24). But in v. 26 the addressee of the divine command is not the external universe but himself, so it is directed internally which makes it cohortative. I think the plural is retained because what is created is specified as being both (1) in the "image" and "likeness" of God, and (2) a plurality: " Then God (sing., not pl.) said, 'Let us (pl., not sing.) make man (sing., not pl.) in our (pl. not sing.) image, in our (pl., not sing.) likeness, so that they (pl., not. sing.) may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground'. And so God (sing., not pl.) created man (sing., not pl.) in his (sing., not pl.) own image, in the image of God (sing., not pl.) he (sing., not pl.) created them (pl., not sing.); male and female he (sing., not pl.) created them (pl., not sing)" (v. 26-27). Man is really a plurality of male and female, and this is in the image and likeness of God, so the plurality (a distinction of male and female) extends to God as well. This reading may be justified by the fact that the shifting between singular and plural in this passage occurs both in references to God and references to man, and outside of v. 26-27 God is strictly singular. This raises the possibility that it is the feminine aspect that is the addressee of the command, in line with the conception of divine Wisdom in Proverbs 8, who during creation was "at his [God's] side as a master workman, rejoicing always in his presence" (v. 30-31). But that is one possible reading... it is the one that makes the most sense to me. Its main weakness is that there isn't any real strong evidence elsewhere that P really had such a concept of God, although his conception is certainly abstract and as mentioned above he avoids referring to the existence of angels and divine beings. As a strength, it is notable that Genesis 1:26 was later interpreted as referring to divine Wisdom in such Jewish sources as Wisdom 9:1-2, 2 Enoch 30:8, and the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer 7.34.6 (R. Hanina in Genesis Rabba 8:3-4 claimed that God was speaking to the ministering angels). As for J which has the plural in 3:22 and 11:7, it has a more henotheistic and anthropomorphic conception (cf. the parallelism between ke'lohîm "like the gods/God" and ke'achad mimmennû "like one of us" in 3:5, 22 and other divine beings mentioned in 3:24 and 6:2), so the usage there may reflect the notion of the divine assembly (1 Kings 22:19-23, Job 1:6, 2:1, Psalm 29:1, 82:1-6, 89:6-7, Isaiah 14:13, Ezekiel 28:14), as the plural in Isaiah 6:1-8 might as well.
JE's story of the three visitors in Genesis 18, and the two visitors in ch. 19, is another interesting and much discussed text. The early church fathers found a reference to the Trinity in the story, but is it really there? There are certainly a variety of other readings which imo better conform to the meaning of the text. To me, the story construes the three visitors as Yahweh and two subordinates, or messengers (= angels in post-exilic Judaism). In v. 22, the two (termed mal'akîm "messengers" in 19:1, 15) are distinguished from Yahweh, who stays behind while they journey to the Cities of the Plain. As you point out, in the description of their conversation with their hosts the plural is used in v. 9 and the singular is used in the next verse (v. 10). But this doesn't presume some mystical telepathic link between the three; it is rather normal Hebrew diction. First of all, the shift from the plural to the singular (an individuated member of the plural) is very common in narratives; the singular can have the sense of "one of them". There are a number of examples of this in the OT. Here is one concerning the birth of Perez and Zerah: " When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys (pl.) in her womb. As she was giving birth, one of them (lit. "he") put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, 'This one came out first' " (38:27-28). And this is another example: "When Jehu went out to his fellow officers (pl.), one of them (lit. "he") asked him, 'Is everything all right?' " (2 Kings 9:11). A third example can be found in Daniel 12:5-6. So in Genesis 18, v. 10 marks the shift from the group to the individuated member who is the one speaking, who is later identified as Yahweh (v. 13); many translations thus render the "he" in v. 10 as "one" or "one of them" (NIV, NRSV, NAB, NET, GNT, etc.). Second of all, reports of conversations between groups of people can easily have shifts between singular and plural. There is a good parallel in the story of the three Assyrian officials visiting Jerusalem in 2 Kings 18. They meet with three delegates of Hezekiah, and one of them (the Rabshakeh) is set apart from the other two as the leader of the group. The account shifts back and forth between singular and plural in much the same way as in Genesis 18. So the three Judeans speak as a group to the Rabshakeh singling him out from "your (sing.) servants" (v. 26), and the Rabshakeh replies to "them" (pl.) using the singular: "Has my master sent me to your (sing.) master and to you (sing.)?" (v. 27). Then later in the same verse he uses the plural. Similarly, in Genesis 19, when one of the two angels speaks individually Lot, Lot addresses "them" (pl.) using the singular (v. 17-19). So the language in Genesis 18 is not really that unusual, but it is understandable how the story later became grist for the theological mill.
Incidentally, I think there possibly was an older, pre-Yahwistic tradition that stands behind the story....one that concerns a visit to the patriarch by three gods. There is a similar story in Canaanite myth of the god Kothar-wa-Hasis visiting the formerly childless sage Danel (likely the same figure from antiquity mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14, 20, 28:3) to present his young son Aqhat (= Actaeon from Boeotian myth) with a bow, and Danel and his wife Dantiy slaughtered a lamb and prepared a feast for their divine guest (KTU 1.17). Ovid preserved a pair of stories from Greek mythology with strong similarities to ch. 18-19 of Genesis. First the three gods Zeus, Hermes (son of Zeus, the "messenger"), and Poseidon (brother of Zeus), disguised as men, visited an elderly childless Boeotian named Hyrieus who welcomes them with hospitality and gives them a feast. After the meal, the three gods told him that he would became father to a son, and nine months later the giant Orion was born to him from the ground ( Fasti 5.493; cf. Antoninus Liberalis, Metamorphoses 25, Pseudo-Hyginus, Fabulae 195 , Astronomica 2.34). Then on another occasion Zeus and Hermes, again disguised as ordinary men, visit a town in Tyana seeking a place to sleep to sleep for the night, and they found "all the doors bolted and no word of kindness given, so wicked were the people of that land"; finally they found shelter at the home of Philemon and Baucis, who paid them hospitality while not realizing they were gods. Then the gods told the couple that they must flee, for they had come to destroy the town, and they instructed the couple to flee to the nearby mountains and not look back until they reached the top, and they then destroyed the city with a flood (Metamorphoses, 611-724). The story is also alluded to in the NT; the people of Lycaonia identified Paul and Barnabas as Zeus and Hermes, declaring: " The gods have come down to us in human form" (Acts 14:11-13).
The parallels imo are strong enough to suggest the possibility that the Hebrew stories drew on similar folklore, in this case localized in Hebron concerning the traditional ancestor of the Israelite and Edomite peoples (Hebron had an Edomite and Judean population), and there are further possible links. The town of Hebron, with its Abraham-linked sites of Mamre and Machpelah, was an longstanding sacred center in pre-Israelite/Canaanite times (going back to the third millennium BC) with a cult centered on the ancient terebinths, associated also with the Abraham tradition (Genesis 13:18, 14:13, 18:1, 23:1). Even as late as Byzantine times, Hebron was the site of an annual summer festival called Terebinthus that venerated the tree, Abraham, and the three visitors (Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica 2.4-54). Hermes and Dionysius were two of the gods (syncretized to native Semitic gods) worshipped by the Edomites of Hebron during this period (Hebron was the center of the viticulture industry of district). The terebinth veneration likely stemmed from the pre-exilic Asherah cult, considering that the Hebrew word for terebinth, 'elah, is identical to the word for "goddess" and was a common epithet for Asherah. According to Josephus, the terebinth at Mamre was considered the most ancient tree in the world and its name was Ogyges (Antiquitates 1.186, Bellum Judaicae 4.533). Curiously, this is the same name of the founder of Boeotia in Greek mythology (who survived the Flood with his wife Thebes), and it is generally recognized that the name is of West Semitic origin (from 'agag "to burn, flame", which was used as a common Amalekite name in the OT). Michael Astour found a very high concentration of West Semitic (Phoenician?) names associated with cities, rivers, and mythological figures of Boeotia, suggesting historical links with the Levant. The connection is explicit in Boeotian legend: the mythical Cadmus (< qedmosh "east"), who founded the Boeotian city of Thebes (< tebah "ark", named after the wife of Ogyges) after slaying the dragon whose blood formed the river Ismenos (< the Phoenician god Eshmun) a.k.a. Ladon (= the name of the dragon slain by Heracles < the dragon Lotan/Leviathan), was a Phoenician who settled in Greece and introduced the Phoenician alphabet. There was certainly contact between Mycenaean Greeks and West Semitic peoples in the period following the LBA collapse when the Sea Peoples settled in the Levant including the Peleshet (= Philistines), the Ekwesh (= the Achaeans), and the Danuna (= the Danaeans, cf. the tribe of Dan adjecent to Philistia). This increases the possibility that the Boeotian legend about the visit of Zeus, Hermes, and Poseidon to Hyrieus is not just coincidentally similar to the Hebron tradition but in fact has a West Semitic origin (or....was the influence in the other direction?). Is it also coincidental that Hermes was venerated in Roman-era Hebron and Hermes was a messenger god? The Boeotian myth of the giant Orion (possibly derived from 'or "light" and cf. the Ugaritic name Aryn), the son of Hyrieus, also has a strong similarity with the story of Danel and Aqhat (which also probably inspired the myth of Actaeon), and the birth of Orion from the ground bears at least a superficial similarity with the metaphor in Isaiah 51:1-2 of the offspring of Abraham and Sarah being hewn from rock (another site at Hebron, the cave of Machpelah, was also associated with the Abraham tradition). And there was a robust tradition of the three giants of Hebron, attested in Joshua 15:14 and elsewhere. So even though there was no clear connection between any of these various motifs (e.g. the Ogyges of Boeotia probably had no connection with the Ogyges of Hebron other than sharing the same name), taken together there may be enough to suggest that behind the text lies a rich traditional background to the Abraham stories set in Hebron. Of course, this is tangential to interpretation of the text, which should be on its own terms.
Dogpatch....Umm, I guess if you want to, but I think it might be better to write a better focused piece; that was kind of written informally as a response to a post. But I'm swamped at the moment...might be good to keep in mind to do later. :)
binadub....There may be some evidence that the valley of Hinnom was used to dump refuse (I vaguely recall something in Nehemiah) but what is questioned is the claim that it was perpetually on fire and was used to cremate corpses (which really wasn't the Jewish way of disposing of the dead in post-exilic times). This claim lacks historical backing and seems to historicize features that really originated in apocalyptic eschatology. The association of fire with the valley is explained by its use in pre-exilic times as the Tophet in the Molech cult, as you note. What I would specifically question is the claim that Gehenna was strictly a metonym of the condition of the dead. This just isn't the case in the available sources, where it has geographical reference: (1) the earliest reference in the Book of Watchers (which is very interested in the geography of the hidden places in the world) locates it as a valley close to the holy mountain (Zion), (2) the slightly later mention in the Animal Apocalypse locates it as a valley to the south of the Temple, (3) the reference to Gehenna in 4 Ezra states it lies "opposite" to Paradise, (4) although not named specifically as Gehenna, the place of the torture of the dead in 2 Enoch 10 is located in third heaven across from Paradise (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:2-4), and (5) Justin Martyr (among others) refers to Gehenna as a "place" (topos). This draws on the older Canaanite/Israelite notion that the slopes of the sacred mountain of God lead all the way down to the underworld at its base. One example was the land of Bashan below Mount Hermon. The "valley of the Rephaim" near Mount Zion is another, and the valley of Hinnom was indeed used as a necropolis (Ketef Hinnom). There was certainly a move away from literal localization (as can be seen in the reference in 2 Enoch), but the concept at its root was one that localized the place of eschatological punishment at the valley of Hinnom (just as the place of punishment of the disobedient angels in the Book of Watchers was in the area around Abel-Main at the base of Mount Hermon). These references, by the way, falsify the claim that Gehenna nowhere appeared in the Pseudepigrapha (it appears conceptually twice in 1 Enoch and one by name in 4 Ezra).
-
designs
Concerning Christian beliefs: 'Obey your masters with respect and fear just like you would the Christ' Eph.6:5
If that doesn't make you sick in the pit of your stomach why.
-
panhandlegirl
Leolaia said;
I attended the session on the book of Daniel at last year's SBL (with John Collins, Michael Segal, Stefan Beyerle, and others), and the discussion was very stimulating.
I have not studied any of these subjects since leaving the borg. Since getting on a few jw sites, I have encountered quite a few terms I am unfamiliar with. The discussions are interesting. I had never heard of the Book of Watchers so I googled it and found some information on Ezra that you mentioned in "The Journal of the Hebrew Scriptures." I intend to read it this week. My question is "What is this SBL session that you attended." Sounds like an interesting session.. Your posts on this thread have been informative.
Panhanlegirl
-
sabastious
Leolaia, thank you so much for the reply. To me the Trinity is a guaranteed product of religious evolution. I think given enough time and data a religion will always head towards monotheism and eventually a Tri-God. Genesis 18's mysterious use of the word "they" in verse 9 seems like an early stepping stone in the evolution towards a Trinity Creator. Your insight into the history of the matter was very facinating.
I believe it is anachronistic and eisegetical to use the much later Christian doctrine of the Trinity as the exegetical key to understanding the OT concept of God.
But that's what the developers of the Trinity doctrine did, right? They studied the Torah and found Genesis 18:1-15 as evidence for God being part of a committee of some kind. When Moses was at the burning bush he tried to get the entity to speak it's name and the entity did not allow for it. Instead the entity calls itself "I AM" which is more evidence that the God of the OT is not a cut and dry single person. The creative process as per the Torah is a group effort and requires speaking in unison. This is why I am so interested in Genesis 18:9 because the three entities are actually speaking in unison. 2 Kings 18 doesn't seem to have anyone speaking in unison. I don't think Genesis 18:9 is just a vague way of describing a group question, I think it's a "telepathic" link.
The concept of a Tri-God was misued in the ancient world.
18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the Lord’s commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”
The ancients had a bad habbit of creating their own laws and then assigning them to false gods. The mention of Asherah in 1 Kings 18:19 is of interest to me because of the recent findings that there used to be a "God marriage" between Yahweh and Asherah in Bible times and they were worshipped as a couple. Separating the traits of God into more than one entity always yielded corruption which is why polytheism was punishable by death for so long. However the "family" arrangement of a Married God did have it's theological cohesion.
Take the story of Abraham and Isaac for instance. God waits until Sarah is baron and then makes her pregnent only to ask Abraham to kill his only son later on. This, to me, is pointing to this "God marriage" that we now know existed and was worshipped. The Torah is saying that God had a son that was a surprise just as Isaac was for Abraham and Sarah. Joseph was the youngest of Israel's son's and was chosen to be king which made his brothers jealous. This is more allegory that points to a "family in heaven" that also has a son that will be king and also of jealous brothers.
That's where we get the third entity in the Trinity: the Firstborn. The Torah shows us that Firstborn is a title rather than an order of birth. Joseph takes the title of Firstborn because he was the clear superior and reflected all of God's traits. Esau trades his birthright showing that the position of Firstborn is about savvy and leadership rather than blood. Eventually Joseph becomes king of Egypt but still remains second in command which mimics the relationship between Yahweh and the Firstborn.
To me the Torah is full of information about the way the celestial family works. Your information on the Greek god's parallel with Genesis 18 also shows a family blood line of three: father, son and brother. My point is that the trinity is not a constructed doctrine, but revealed through our ancients evolution of their understanding of the universe and our creation. It seems unequivocal to me that the three entities in Genesis 18 are at the very least three gods including Yahweh and not God and two angels.
-Sab
-
designs
Baruch atah Adonai, Eloheinu, Melech Ha-Olam
Sab- Take your impressions to your local Synagogue and ask the Rabbis.
-
Leolaia
Hi panhandlegirl...I should do a post on the different writings contained in Enochic literature; it really is interesting. 1 Enoch (which includes such writings as the Book of Watchers, the Book of Parables, the Book of Luminaries, the Animal Apocalypse, the Apocalypse of Weeks, the Epistle of Enoch, a fragment of the Book of Noah, and which at one time included the Book of Giants) is such an important book for understanding the pre-Christian origin of many of the ideas that appear in the NT, such as demons and demon possession, the state of the dead, Gehenna and post-mortem punishment of the dead, judgment day, the Son of Man and the messiah, the idea of a millennium, Tartarus, archangels, and so much more. All of these are ideas that, although not found in the OT (or not quite in the same form), were not invented by Christians but were part of the Judaism that Christianity grew from. The difference between rabbinical Judaism and Christianity imo reflects in part the difference between two major sects in Second Temple Judaism: Pharisaism and Essenism. Enochic books (and indeed much of the pseudepigrapha) represent the kind of Judaism that Essenism grew out of as well as (non-Qumranic) Essenism itself; the movements of John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth, meanwhile, may be situated within first century Essenism. That is partly why Enochic ideas are so prominent in the NT and why at least one book, Jude (ascribed to the brother of Jesus), utilizes it at length. The book of Daniel, composed of an Aramaic apocalypse and a younger Hebrew apocalypse, dates to around the same time as such Enochic writings as the Book of Watchers, the Animal Apocalypse, and the Apocalypse of Weeks, and both have many ideas in common. Daniel was accepted as scripture by the Pharisees and the Essenes and dates to a time prior to the genesis of both sects (it may have originated in the Hasidean movement that drew on both Enochic Judaism and priestly proto-Sadducee Judaism). There is a lot in this picture that is unclear and subject to debate, but that is what makes the history of Second Temple Judaism and the origin of the different sects within it so interesting.
I was just an observer at the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature) meeting....and here are the papers presented at the Daniel session (from the program book):
Book of Daniel
11/21/2011
9:00 AM to 11:30 AM
Room: Sierra K - Marriott MarquisTheme: New Directions in the Study of Daniel
This is the debut session of The Book of Daniel consultation.Neal Walls, Wake Forest University, Presiding
Michael Segal, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Reconsidering the Theological Background of Daniel 7 in Light of Innerbiblical Interpretation
The apocalyptic vision of Daniel 7, which plays a pivotal role within the Book of Daniel, has influenced both Early Christian and Jewish literature. The rich symbolism of the four beasts, and of the Ancient of Days and the One like a Human Being, have been discussed by both early interpreters and critical scholars. Most recent studies have focused on extrabiblical parallels, including Mesopotamian and Canaanite mythology. While these influences are highly significant, this paper will emphasize the reuse of earlier biblical traditions in Daniel 7, including Deuteronomy 32:8–9, the division of the nations to the sons of God; Psalm 82, a courtroom scene involving the divine retinue, which culminates with the inheritance of the nations; and Psalm 68:5, in which YHWH is described as riding on the clouds. In light of these passages, it will be suggested that the apocalyptic vision in Daniel 7 describes an eschatological redistribution of all of the nations and their lands, reversing the division described in Deut 32:8–9, and enacting the court scene of Psalm 82, according to which YHWH will inherit all of the nations. This line of interpretation sheds new light on Daniel 7 itself, as well as on the process of literary development of the entire book.
Amy Merrill Willis, Lynchburg College
The Plans of God in Jeremiah and Daniel's Historical Reviews
Daniel's use of Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy has been the subject of much attention, yet Jeremiah appears in Daniel in other ways. This paper will examine the vocabulary and thinking of the divine plan in Jeremiah and how it may be at work in Daniel's depiction of God and kings in the historical reviews. To this end, the connection between Jeremiah's deuteronomistic theology and Daniel's apocalyptic construction of history will be considered outside of the context of Daniel 9.
Matthias Henze, Rice University
Daniel's First Readers: "Hazon Gabriel" and "2 Baruch"
This paper will examine the reception of Daniel by its earliest readers using texts from Qumran, "Hazon Gabriel", and 2 Baruch.
Stefan Beyerle, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald
"Apocalypse Against Empire": Anathea Portier-Young’s Book in the Context of Recent Scholarship
Anathea Portier-Young’s book on "Apocalypse Against Empire" combines a thorough analysis of the historical backgrounds of apocalyptic writings with questions and conclusions concerning a theological interpretation of "Apocalypses." By focusing on the earlier apocalyptic compositions, like the Book of Daniel and some significant parts of 1 Enoch, Portier-Young highlights a historical context that primarily has the Jewish revolt against Antiochus IV in view. Therefore, "Resistance Theology" in those apocalypses considers the relationship between Hellenism and Judaism. This paper provides a review of the monograph within the context of recent publications.
John Collins, Yale University, Respondent (25 min)
Discussion (25 min) -
dreamgolfer
not "eye" said the Blind man,,
-
dreamgolfer
I believe in this....
"Well, I believe in the soul, the c%6k, the p*#$y, the small of a woman's back, the hanging curve ball, high fiber, good scotch, that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap. I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, soft-core pornography, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days."
now who know where this quote came from -- Happy HOT SUNDAY...i gotta go jump in da pool! IF you do PM me with your address and I may send you a fREE gift!
-
binadub
Hi Randy:
Thanks for your reply. The longer historical account is pretty much what I understand about Benjamin Wilson. In my own independent study of the Bible, I do reject most of the orthodox doctrines you mentioned, including Trinity, immortal soul, hellfire, rapture; and including some of the doctrinal interpretations by Benjamin Wilson's religion as well. I'm very much like you in that I'm not associated with any religion, although I do retain Christian faith via independent study and research. I've somewhat married my Biblical research with studying the history of civilization (which I think is fascinating because of its roots in Mesopotamia and other coincidences).
The biggest biblical/doctrinal flaw I find with the WTS and related religions (including Wilson's) is the teaching of paradise Earth during the so-called "thousand years." To my study, their concept of survivors, resurrections, etc., etc., during the millenium is totally without scriptural basis and I've never found any JW who could reasonably defend it. I also disagree with their teaching of "Babylon the Great" as being false religion. (Of course the list could go on.)
Because you referred to me as "bro," I think you might not realize we have known each other on-line for almost two decades and we met at an exJW gathering at my sister's home in Pomona (late 90s).
I'm Ros on the other forums. :-)))
(I was only allowed to keep one moniker here, so I chose to keep Binadub.)
I was reading some of your bio this past week on the RandyWatters site. It was so interesting I almost e-mailed you.
I'll take a look at the article on hell you referred to above. Thanks for the interesting info.Oh and btw, I didn't think you are evangelical. Did I imply that? :-)
Leolaida:
You mentioned on another thread that you met AlanF on a couple of occasions in the past.
I was wondering if by chance that happened to be in Washington State. If so, we may have met as well.Thanks for the info "bro" Watters :-)
~Binadub (aka Ros)