can anyone add to this list of links?.
20) proof texts that jesus was, and is, god.. 21) phillip said to jesus: show us the father - (john 14:8-10).
37) and the word was god - (john 1:1).
do you see the silliness of this whole punishment routine.
I do, and I have explained that before: that was a major realisation when I exited the Watchtower. And while I could never buy into "hell-stuff" after that, this didn't make me unsympathetic to "orthodox" Christology and Trinity doctrine; quite the opposite in fact.
That's the reason why I think you are making the wrong connection.
a non witness who had studied the jws commented that the religion produce unmanly men.
do you agree with him?.
.
"Going against nature"... sounds a bit like Paul (in his ill-inspired days) ;)
can anyone add to this list of links?.
20) proof texts that jesus was, and is, god.. 21) phillip said to jesus: show us the father - (john 14:8-10).
37) and the word was god - (john 1:1).
the Church of Rome and the founders of the Reformation were proponents of Hell as a place of conscious torment, it was intrinsic to their definition of god- what he is, what he does, how he loves and punishes.
So were the founders of Islam. Iow the connection of "God" with an absolutised notion of retribution (which is basically what "hell" is about) has nothing to do with his being "in three persons" (which is what the Trinity is about) or not.
I would even say that if there is a (fringe) relationship it is the opposite of what you think. Because in the (economic) Trinity "God" actually takes the judgement/condemnation/punishment/torment onto himself (in part only, for "dualistic" Trinitarians who believe in a reality of Hell apart from that; fully and unconditionally, for many Trinitarian "universalists").
can anyone add to this list of links?.
20) proof texts that jesus was, and is, god.. 21) phillip said to jesus: show us the father - (john 14:8-10).
37) and the word was god - (john 1:1).
designs,
You avoided my question: how is Hell (as shared by a section of Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc.) LOGICALLY connected with the Trinity (as shared by a historically dominant section of Christianity)?
Btw, "paradise" (as a post-mortem state) and resurrection is not anymore "rooted in the primitive beliefs" of Judaism than Hell (Gehenna, etc.).
can anyone add to this list of links?.
20) proof texts that jesus was, and is, god.. 21) phillip said to jesus: show us the father - (john 14:8-10).
37) and the word was god - (john 1:1).
designs,
Because a number of believers in the Trinity are ALSO believers in Hell it doesn't follow that these doctrines are logically connected. They aren't imo. If they are, as you have asserted countless times, please explain why and/or how.
The doctrine of Hell emerged in monotheistic second-temple Judaism rather independently from angelologic developments which provided the background for the heavenly "Son of God" figure; it was shared by pre- and anti-Trinitarian Christians, both of the Jewish-Christian and later Arian kinds; it was adopted by Islamic monotheism which opposed the Trinity concept right from the start.
Otoh the Trinity concept in more or less developed forms was perfectly compatible with views of universal salvation opposing the concept of everlasting torment like the doctrine of apokatastasis in Origen and Gregory of Nyssa; it is still the case with all kinds of universalist theologians; a number of modern doctrines also combine Trinitarianism with "annihilationist" views, like Seventh-Day Adventism or even a few Evangelicals like John Stott.
And please don't evade this question of the relationship between two DOCTRINES by moving to a "theory vs. practice" argument. If such a dilemma is valid it applies to ALL doctrines, not just the ones you happen to dislike...
walton is professor of old testament at wheaton college and the author of several books on the ot, including a commentary on genesis.. .
while other bible-believing writers address head-on the specific evidences provided by the evolutionary sciences, author walton brushes modern science to one side:.
genesis 1 is ancient cosmology.
It sounds like it might still be still 'concordism', only much more indirectly so.
One thing I noticed over years of conversations on this and related topics, with people ranging from scholars to uneducated, believers and unbelievers, is that it is extremely difficult for some minds to step out of concordism. You think they have got it and concordism resurges in the next sentence, at best in a more sophisticated or disguised form. To an extent it goes hand to hand with cultural ethnocentrism. Somehow our representation of reality (not only scientific cosmology, also analytic categories like "function") has to be the right one (or the best one so far) and thus, in effect, transcends the historical circumstances of its production. Iow, an ancient cosmogenesis has to "translate" into our reality and be judged "right" or "wrong" from this perspective.
Ultimately, the simplest explanation I have come up with so far is: of course the writer of Genesis 1--2:4a was speaking about the origin of the world. Only his world was not ours.And this applies not only to his representation of the "physical" world, but also to the religious and intellectual ideas and concepts he used to make sense of it. Some people get that instantly (only by reading the text in some cases), others never do, and this has little to do with the amount of education they have received. It's a matter of literary or historical sense.
i was given the brochure the divine name that will endure forever, and was pointed to page 20 which is entitled "hostility to god's name?".
it says that the word jehovah was originally in the hebrew scriptures but was taken out.
is this true?
Hi 6,
I can't recall anything like that, but then this is the kind of topic to attract a lot of 'fringe scholarship' and eccentric proposals (all legitimate in their authors' eyes of course). E.g. this French JW, non-specialist, who overwatchtowers the Watchtower by arguing for... Yehowah http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/71614/1/The-pronunciation-of-the-Tetragrammaton-according-to-Gerard-Gertoux ; or this more recent thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/174104/1/Nehemia-Gordon-and-the-pronunciation-of-the-tetragrammaton (the first few posts before it gets off topic)
The network of evidence for a first syllable Ya- is overwhelming imo; the arguments for Yahweh are strong but it seems to me that Yahu(h) (or less likely Yaho) remains a plausible concurrent; it is generally dismissed as an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton (Yhw, prefix or suffix in theophoric names), but this doesn't rule out a similar pronunciation for the whole Tetragrammaton. Yahweh undoubtedly existed at some point (in Samaria notably) but may also be a late development adapting a pre-Israelite divine name to Hebrew language....
i was given the brochure the divine name that will endure forever, and was pointed to page 20 which is entitled "hostility to god's name?".
it says that the word jehovah was originally in the hebrew scriptures but was taken out.
is this true?
Does Hebrew "separate" the prononuciation of words by the vowels like we "typically" do? did Koine greek?
Would 4 vowels equal 4 syllabuls?
Vowels between words? Apparently no. Between each consonant (in the broadest sense) and the next, like in some (African?) languages where a sequence of consonants cannot be pronounced unless separated by vowels (and a word like spectre would have to be transliterated with something like *isipikitiri, for instance)? Neither I think. But "we" don't "typically" do that either so I'm afraid I don't understand your question. Could you explain and/or give an example?
In Greek it is likely that the sequence i-a-u-e wouldbe read as a 4-syllable word with triple dieresis, especially by readers without a semitic background; but not necessarily so; if the i and/or u are taken as semi-consonants it could also be read as ia-u-e, ia-ue, i.e. 3 or 2 syllables respectively.
i was given the brochure the divine name that will endure forever, and was pointed to page 20 which is entitled "hostility to god's name?".
it says that the word jehovah was originally in the hebrew scriptures but was taken out.
is this true?
Perhaps we should start with the usual simplification that 'Hebrew writes only consonants'; the Hebrew letters corresponding to Y, H, W, H are written.
But not all Hebrew written letters are actually consonants in the phonetic sense: in most English uses, for instance, Y and W stand for semi- or half-consonants" (not sure of the English terminology here), and it was most likely also the case in ancient Hebrew. Moreover, in Biblical (and even more in DSS) Hebrew a number of letters can also work as matres lectionis, i.e. as a graphic reminder of (or substitute for) a full vowel; in that case Y can stand for "i" or "e", W for "o" or "u", H for "a" or "e". It is an either/or system: either the letter stands for its own (semi-)consonantic value, OR for the vowel it substitutes -- not both -- a fact which is often missed by those who try to deduce the vowels of the Tetragrammaton from the written letters, while retaining their (semi-)consonantic value.
Now when you transliterate Hebrew into Greek you find yourself with a problem; neither the semi-consonantic Y or W nor the aspirate H exist as separate letters. To transliterate a name like Yahweh you will likely have to use four Greek vowels: i-a-u-e (or more, e.g. i-a-ou-ai); if the Hebrew equivalent to W is read as a fricative (V) as is the case in later, especally Eastern-European Hebrew, you may include the consonant beta: i-a-b-e etc. (in late Greek beta tends to be pronounced as "v" as well). And that the divine name in Greek transliteration seems to consist of four vowels (even though at least two of them may have originally stood for semi-consonants just as Y and W) lends itself to speculation in a Hellenistic setting (cf. Plato on the "superiority" of vowels over consonants, and the vocalic invocations in Gnostic texts of the Nag Hammadi library for instance).
the wt and jws around the world have made the evil "trinity" their reason for existence.
when in fact they have quite a mystery of their own.
one son in two separate an distinct persons with two separate an distinct natures archangel michael/human jesus.. on another thread spike tassel tried to explain this by saying: .
Like you used to be made of "sarahle stuff" before you were reborn into "reniaa stuff" and now you are again "sarahle stuff"?
That would make you different from most (other) posters...
