by hooberus 133 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Ellderwho,
I believe when "one" claims to have it all figured out, kinda reminds me of the cult I was raised in.
"All figured out" according to my understanding is equivalent to "absolute truth of a matter." According to what you wrote, "when 'one' claims to have" such, you are reminded of a cult. If you have a problem with the way I understood you, I'm interested in your explanation.
Herk
Herk,
If a person is seeking the "truth" he's seeking the truth.
If a fallable human claims to have it "all figured out" he is setting himself "up."
Absolute truths, the earth is round, I see my hand in front of my face.
If man or a Org. claims to have the absolute "Biblical" truth no questions asked attitude. I see that as self-proclaiming exculsiveness.
In essence Im leary of people who say they have it all figured out.
ellderwho
Ellderwho,
In essence Im leary of people who say they have it all figured out.
So where do you draw the line? You seem to "have it all figured out" regarding the shape of the earth and your hand, but you deny others the privilege of having "it all figured out" religiously. In essence you are leary of Jesus and the apostles for their "self-proclaiming exculsiveness." So what's the point then of even reading the Bible if a person drawing conclusions from it "is setting himself 'up'"?
It seems to me you're saying Bible study is a waste of time, that learning truth from it is impossible. If you're not saying that, what are you saying? It seems to me like you're going in circles here.
There seems to be something extremely contradictory in your approach to things, Ellderwho. Earlier you argued vigorously in defense of the Trinity, and now you're saying that trying to figure it out reminds you of the cult you came out of. So, what is your point? Is the Trinity worth defending or isn't it? If it's not, why did you try so hard? What is your reason for getting involved in a discussion where you feel that a person arriving at conclusions "is setting himself 'up'"? I have to tell you that in all my seven decades of life, I don't think I've ever met anybody who goes around in circles like you seem to be doing.
As I indicated earlier, I don't condemn you or anybody if you're happy believing the Trinity. But I think you go a step too far when you condemn others as cultish simply because they don't agree with your personal concept of God and because they want something better than what you have to offer.
Herk
Herk,
When you stated this seems to be ramblings, thats fine I'll drop proving my beliefs. Where in my posts do I claim to have it all figured out?
Drawing conculisions in so far as the trinity. Or not.
What is contradictory in letting it go. The trinity. Herk, Im letting it go.
If a person does not believe the trinity, and than conveys that if you do, than your not getting the full thrust of scripture. I would say your making youself an authority.
Is the Trinity worth defending or isn't it? If it's not, why did you try so hard? What is your reason for getting involved in a discussion
You stated this seems to be ramblings did you not. Then accuse me of not answering your scriptures, while totally ignoring mine.
True I may have overlooked some examples you have given.
As far as absolute truth yes I do have that figured out I see my hand.
Herk, Im giving you an example.
If you give an example of your idea of an absolute truth from scripture Im sure their is someone out there that will debate you.
as cultish simply because they don't agree
No, thats not what I said. Again Herk, if you say you have it all figured out with no questions asked, this reminds me of cult thinking.
At what point did I conject "if you dont agree with me." I think your being cultish.
I don't think I've ever met anybody who goes around in circles like you seem to be doing.
So who's going in circles Herk?
ellderwho
Ellderwho,
Then accuse me of not answering your scriptures, while totally ignoring mine. True I may have overlooked some examples you have given.
"While totally ignoring" yours!!!
Now I know what I'm dealing with, and I regret I ever got started with you. Have fun with yourself, Ellderwho.
Herk
Herk,
and I regret I ever got started with you.
Sorry you feel that way.
ellderwho
elderwho and herk:
I don't think trinitarians and unitarians will ever find common ground on this subject. But the important thing is to allow each other different viewpoints without judgement. We can still respect other viewpoints without agreeing with them.
In the long run, I don't think we will be judged by doctrine. Don't forget the Good Samaritan who was a despised apostate but was used by Jesus as an example of a neighbor who showed love and compassion.
ellderwho, thanks for clarifying that for me and sorry for taking a time to reply (had to sleep then go to work). Yes I agree that the Holy Spirit is required to understand that Jesus is Lord. I fully agree with Paul calling Jesus Lord. The point that Hooberus originally alluded to at the beginning of the thread was that by calling Jesus Lord, Paul is equating Jesus with God / Jehovah. One of the points I was trying to make was that the Title Lord when applied to Jesus does not necessarily equate him with God. The word Lord has various levels of application and depth of meaning. We need to find out what Paul meant here by applying that title. If he was simply trying to equate the Father and the Son to show that they are the same God then why did he not simply say " but to us there is one LORD GOD the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. He would therefore have conjoined both titles in one and clearly shown that all three persons mentioned are all and the same LORD GOD. As I said previously , if this new teaching of the trinity was needed to be shown and explained then why did he not do so here in these terms. To my mind I therefore see that this was not his intent as he was not trying to equate the Father and the Son as the same GODHEAD. He was trying to show that worship of the Father now required recognising the role and authority of his Son Jesus whom he had anointed to act as our LORD i.e our Master / King / Messiah. So Paul skillfully shows the intimacy of the relationship between the Father and the Son whilst still showing the difference in their status. Let me quote from a refernce work that I found at a local reference library. A JEWISH UNDERSTANDING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - Chapter 7 page 52-53 " The God of Judaism and of the Bible is affirmed by Paul; he speaks of his eternal power and of his Godhood which has been known since the creation of the world. Not God , therefore but the means of knowing him has changed.....He ( referring to Christ the Son) is an offshoot of God, not identical with Him but subject to the Father, just as the Logos was a manifestation of God's mind, not identical with God......The Pauline distinction between God and the Christ is emphasized in the word Lord ( Kyrios) which in literal Greek meant master, ruler or simply sir.....Paul...consistently reserves 'God' for God and never alludes to God as 'Lord' Lord, somewhat as in Philo , is an attribute of God but not God himself. Christ then is an aspect of God ; godly , yet not God". So this view sees the term Lord as clearly demonstrating a 'difference' between the Father and the Son, an entirely opposite view to the trinitarian view expressed by Hooberus. I have other similar quotes from other reference works saying much the same. Therefore in 1 Cor. 8 : 5,6, I see not a triune God expressed but the special role that the Lord Messiah has in relation to the worship of God the Father. I welcome your further thoughts on this reply. Dean.
Mizpah,
But the important thing is to allow each other different viewpoints without judgement. We can still respect other viewpoints without agreeing with them.
I'm in total agreement with your statement. However, I completely lose all respect for anybody, regardless of his religious persuasion, if he blatantly lies to my face as Ellderwho has. After I patiently and painstakingly dealt with every point he raised, he had the audacity to say that I "totally ignored" his scriptures. I won't waste another breath on anybody like that. I consider it throwing pearls before swine.
I'm a working man and don't have time to spend in front of a computer trying to reason for hours on end with people. Ellderwho seemed at first to be sincere and honest, but he was bluffing. Going back over his posts, that becomes quite obvious. What a fool I was for giving him the benefit of the doubt and allowing him even a minute of my time!
Herk
Herk,
Relax, your not going to paint me into a corner with scripture. Why dont you just bring a baseball bat next time! Sorry, your theology doesnt line up with what the scripture tells me.
Herk, I thought you said you enjoyed the debate!
Dean Porter,
By looking at the Jw position, they will identify the KURIOS as Jehovah then back to Jesus, with inconsistencies all along the way.
My point is you cant have Jehovah decending from heaven if contextually it is the Lord(KURIOS)=(Jesus) not the THEOS.
A scripture that was quoted earlier about God being the Head of christ and Christ being head of man and man being head of woman. I see this as order not so much as ranking. Thus, I am head of my household and wife and kids. Does that make me greater than my wife?
In this forum I will try to take the position of Devils advocate when dismantling Jw theology because its all "backdoor" technique.(you know, set 'em up watch 'em fall) Thats why when talking with Jws their first line of offense is to try and goad me into admitting I believe in the trinity. If this happens I logically have to defend it. Which is difficult because I can not comprehend the "trinity" So I resort to showing the scriptures that show Christ in the OT. that tie him to the father.But generally I will not "go there" as a practice. Although things can get out-of-hand in this forum. Better to talk face to face.
I guess the real point is with the translation of KURIOS in the NWT.
The Pauline distinction between God and the Christ is emphasized in the word Lord ( Kyrios) which in literal Greek meant master, ruler or simply sir.....
KURIOS (supremacy) supreme in authority, that is as a noun by implication mr (as a respectful title):
God ,Lord master sir. Strongs
My theology fits fine with the trinity, only when I try look at Jesus as something less than God do I find myself questioning his place in scripture. That leaves me wondering what is Jesus is he a little god, is he dual in nature half man, half Michael, 1/4 spirit, 1/4 Jesus.
Clear as mud huh.
ellderwho
