by humbled 34 Replies latest watchtower bible
'You allow for jesus to be god by nature, but no else can be god by nature.'
'Logic and reason eliminates "many gods". There can only be one uncaused causer...'
Standard christianity claims one god in 3 persons. Wt thinking distorts the standard trinity definition to say 3 gods. Isadore, you are still a victim of wt type thinking, not logical thinking.
S
LOL it doesn't get much more circular than this.
Logic and reason eliminates "many gods". There can only be one uncaused causer
That statement has nothing to do with logic...and more to do with belief bias.
So theoritically this site could be our ''church'' ?
It's a gathering place of many people.
I think why people are against the use of the word ''church'' is because of all the false religion and lies,
we tend to automatically associate it with something 'bad' not 'good' in the sense of God and Spirituality.
I think we have a natural inclination to see the 'bad' more than the 'good'.
The main thing that 'tricked' me into the cult, was they used the Bible, but for that, it wouldn't of happened.
Although I am grateful for the 'good', I learned a lot about the Bible, God and Jesus.
Satanus, I think you may have misread what I am saying. I believe the doctrine of the Trinity. The WTBS misreprents what the teaching is by prsenting Modalism.
Stillthinking, logically speaking, can something come into being out of nothing without causality?
My 1990 Strong's Concordance published by Thomas Nelson doesn't editorialize as much as your edition does on the definition of ekklesia. It does what is proper however by supplying the rerivation of the word parts so that I can think about it.
I want to know what the word meant as it came to the ear of each person hearing it when Jesus spoke it--Not what James Strong, a Methodist churchgoer supposed 2000 years later. I agree with your comment--the word congregation doesn't fit any more than the words synagogue or assembly.
1577.ekklesia; from a comp. of 1537 and a der.of 2564; a calling out
The parts of the word ekklesia remind me of the admonition to come out of false religion, especially because 2564, kaleo, to call, is akin (says Strong) to the base of 2753:to incite by word.
So the scriptures you mention I looked up to be sure I have your sense of them.
It seemed after thinking about it, that a quibble on the meaning of church or ekklesia isn't a waste of time but can't get us off high center.
Since the idea of church authority and the extent of that authority among the ones Jesus "calls out" is where you and I differ.
The scriptures you present can only be understood if we look at Matt.23:8,10. Actually the original word Jesus used. If I understand how a Christian should view official doctrine, universal authority only then would I come to grips with having Church Fathers (oops! Jesus warned us of them in this scripture) tell me what I can or can't believe instead of having Jesus guide me.
I had to find the Old King James translation to reference the original language word--It is a Greek word that, as far as I know is never used anywhere else but this passage of the bible: kathegetes (KJV "master") is the word sometimes translated as "rabbi" or "teacher".
So that where I am. Can we obey Jesus, being a part of his ekklesia by having an orthodoxy determined by a group of men.
Thanks for talking.
Maeve
My 1990 Strong's Concordance published by Thomas Nelson doesn't editorialize as much as your edition does on the definition of ekklesia. It does what is proper however by supplying the rerivation of the word parts so that I can think about it.
I want to know what the word meant as it came to the ear of each person hearing it when Jesus spoke it--Not what James Strong, a Methodist churchgoer supposed 2000 years later. I agree with your comment--the word congregation doesn't fit any more than the words synagogue or assembly.
1577.ekklesia; from a comp. of 1537 and a der.of 2564; a calling out
The parts of the word ekklesia remind me of the admonition to come out of false religion, especially because 2564, kaleo, to call, is akin (says Strong) to the base of 2753:to incite by word.
So the scriptures you mention I looked up to be sure I have your sense of them.
It seemed after thinking about it, that a quibble on the meaning of church or ekklesia isn't a waste of time but can't get us off high center.
Since the idea of church authority and the extent of that authority among the ones Jesus "calls out" is where you and I differ.
The scriptures you present can only be understood if we look at Matt.23:8,10. Actually the original word Jesus used. If I understand how a Christian should view official doctrine, universal authority only then would I come to grips with having Church Fathers (oops! Jesus warned us of them in this scripture) tell me what I can or can't believe instead of having Jesus guide me.
I had to find the Old King James translation to reference the original language word--It is a Greek word that, as far as I know is never used anywhere else but this passage of the bible: kathegetes (KJV "master") is the word sometimes translated as "rabbi" or "teacher".
So that where I am. Can we obey Jesus, being a part of his ekklesia by having an orthodoxy determined by a group of men.
Thanks for talking.
Maeve
Have to agree with still thinking. Logic and reason will eliminate every god. What makes the Judeo-Christian god hold up to the scrutiny that Zeus or Vishnu doesn't? Plain and simple it is belief bias.
Lost--this is where we tell our story of personal faith--and we do find support and also ridicule and also valid critism. All good. All good. If Jesus says where 2 or more are gathered together in his name.... might he be in the midst of THEM? It would be himself to know if we are gathered together for him or for an organization.
Fernando--I realize this kind of post from a person who tries to listen to the teaching of Jesus and mistrusts the destructive-corroding imposition of orthodox-authoritative-domineering-capricious Church veer close to the edge of the abys--(whatever may be there---the real Truth?) But go there we must if following the lamb takes one there.
Still thinking, Satanus and Mr Freeze--I agree that the Judeo-Christian god I was taught is not superior to Zeus or Vishnu. I don't see the OT Jehovah clearly at all as the god of love that Jesus spoke of.
I have said elsewhere that I have had experiences of supernatural nature that make me wonder at what we call God. My experiences force me to examine my prejudices and my sanity, my own fallibility. I am so limited by my circumstances in life that I suppose a kind powerful being must therefore be very generous toward me because I refuse to yield to those of greater scholarship and mental abilities if I sense they are strong-arming me to conform to their views and against my conscience. I take comfort knowing that I am precisely in the same condition as the poor to whom Jesus first preached the good news.
I admit that I am trying to fathom the teachings of Jesus in order to learn who God is through following him. All good things I hear from other faith traditions do not detract from the good things I've learned from him. I don't care whether or not there is a Trinity. What practical reason is there for it? If it had mattered Jesus would have made it clear. But love was the main thing.
