hmike

Joined

• started 6 topics
• posted 397 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by hmike

• 
  100

  A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no longer being a christian, it has become a mind opening experience to look back and see certian things i once ignored or just brushed off.

  yet now i can not help but see these things and wonder why other christians do not.. if you have ever studied greek, roman or any other cultures religions in history.

  then you have no doubt read their legends, about gods and how things came to be, and no doubt you have enjoyed these and at the same time you must have wondered how people actually bought this enough to make it a religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Sorry, I misunderstood about who was 18--I thought LittleToe.
• 
  100

  A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no longer being a christian, it has become a mind opening experience to look back and see certian things i once ignored or just brushed off.

  yet now i can not help but see these things and wonder why other christians do not.. if you have ever studied greek, roman or any other cultures religions in history.

  then you have no doubt read their legends, about gods and how things came to be, and no doubt you have enjoyed these and at the same time you must have wondered how people actually bought this enough to make it a religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  OK free2beme, your last long post gives me some insight to where you're coming from. I've seen your perspective written in this forum many times in the short time I've been here--I don't know why yours stirred up so much more reaction.

  To answer your original question, I have read Greek and Roman mythology, along with some from other cultures. I personally think there is enough distinction to make the Bible credible, and I certainly don't agree that Biblical accounts necessarily were based on existent myths when it was written. Perhaps someday this topic will come up again and we can cover it point-by-point. In the meantime, I wish you well on your post-JW journey.
• 
  100

  A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no longer being a christian, it has become a mind opening experience to look back and see certian things i once ignored or just brushed off.

  yet now i can not help but see these things and wonder why other christians do not.. if you have ever studied greek, roman or any other cultures religions in history.

  then you have no doubt read their legends, about gods and how things came to be, and no doubt you have enjoyed these and at the same time you must have wondered how people actually bought this enough to make it a religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  free2beme,

  Looks like to take it as a form of coercion just to get you to think a certain way. Think of it as a warning. If you saw a sign that said, "ROAD CLOSED--BRIDGE OUT AHEAD," would you keep on driving while thinking, "I'm going to stay on this road because I want to be independent and not yield to anybody, and if the bridge is really out, I'll have a great thrill going down and make a wonderful splat at the bottom."
• 
  100

  A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no longer being a christian, it has become a mind opening experience to look back and see certian things i once ignored or just brushed off.

  yet now i can not help but see these things and wonder why other christians do not.. if you have ever studied greek, roman or any other cultures religions in history.

  then you have no doubt read their legends, about gods and how things came to be, and no doubt you have enjoyed these and at the same time you must have wondered how people actually bought this enough to make it a religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  i like the way you formulate your thoughts and arguments. i also happen to think you have a bright future in the study of classics. are you really 18?

  18!? No wonder he doesn't know about Oh God!--before his time.
• 
  92

  Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

  by zagor in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've seen several comments about trinity, so here goes another one: .

  please read again genesis 1:26

  this is very interesting paragraph and many times is being used as a proof of trinity as it says let us create .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Just one request please if possible, I know that this is highly controversial subject and it is easy to get fired up emotionally so let just try discussing this academically.

  
  

  
  No problem here.

  Thanks for the reply and the article. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I cannot comment on the linguistic issues directly, but I do have some questions raised by this piece:

  1. How can someone "masquerade" as a Messianic Jew? You either are or you aren't. The only issue is, does one believe the Messiah has already been here, or will arrive in the future, right?

  2. The reference to "three distinct YaHWeh's" sounds too much like the three Gods idea that the WT attibutes to Christianity. I'm not sure the author is clear on the concept.

  3. In the reference to "One" as in "one penny," the word denotes a quantity, regardless of whether it is a composite or not. It merely distinguishes between "one penny" and "two or more pennies." There is nothing in the English definition that differentiates what makes up that one. By the way, if I cut up that penny into two or more pieces and hold all the pieces in my hand, can I still say I have one penny in my hand?

  4. The author cites context as the basis for how to properly understand the word. But context is subject to interpretation, is it not? The word "Elohim" is regarded by all as a plural, right? And Bible translators use context to determine whether it should be translated as "God" or "gods." But remember what Narkissos and Leolaia wrote earlier? To some, certain texts of the OT have their origins in polytheism, so for them, it should always be translated as "gods."

  My personal feeling about Deut. 6:4 is that YHWH wanted to make it clear that He shares the highest point with no one or nothing else: "...YHWH is God; besides him there is no other" (Deut. 4:35). In Deut. 6:5, immediately after our verse, we have, "Love YHWH your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." In other words, hold nothing back for the idols. So, in this sense, the alternative translation suggested by some: "YHWH is our God, YHWH alone" might be more suitable to this context.
• 
  100

  A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no longer being a christian, it has become a mind opening experience to look back and see certian things i once ignored or just brushed off.

  yet now i can not help but see these things and wonder why other christians do not.. if you have ever studied greek, roman or any other cultures religions in history.

  then you have no doubt read their legends, about gods and how things came to be, and no doubt you have enjoyed these and at the same time you must have wondered how people actually bought this enough to make it a religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Actually, the LT-Tetra scenario sounds like another sequel to Oh God!
• 
  100

  A Christian question, but applies to all thinking Christian too!

  by free2beme in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  no longer being a christian, it has become a mind opening experience to look back and see certian things i once ignored or just brushed off.

  yet now i can not help but see these things and wonder why other christians do not.. if you have ever studied greek, roman or any other cultures religions in history.

  then you have no doubt read their legends, about gods and how things came to be, and no doubt you have enjoyed these and at the same time you must have wondered how people actually bought this enough to make it a religion.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  I only had to read this far to hear, "your going to hell, your going to hell, your going to hell" in my mind.

  Just curious, do you mean…

  “You ignorant, heathen scum. You dare to insult God, and say I am wrong. You’re going to hell where you and your kind belong, and I will enjoy seeing it happen!”

  Or do you mean...

  “Without the love and sacrifice of Jesus, every one of us would be forever lost in darkness, misery, and sorrow. Jesus gave himself to save you out of that. If you persist in rejecting him, you’re going to hell. God, please, open this person’s eyes and heart to your compassion and glory, and use me in whatever way it takes to help him receive your grace. Forgive him, for he knows not what he is doing.”
• 
  92

  Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

  by zagor in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've seen several comments about trinity, so here goes another one: .

  please read again genesis 1:26

  this is very interesting paragraph and many times is being used as a proof of trinity as it says let us create .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Looks like it pasted in fine.

  I'd appreciate your comments, Zagor--and anyone else.
• 
  92

  Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

  by zagor in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've seen several comments about trinity, so here goes another one: .

  please read again genesis 1:26

  this is very interesting paragraph and many times is being used as a proof of trinity as it says let us create .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Hi Zagor,

  Thanks for the reply.

  I'll try to give you an example of what I've referred to. I'm going to start with text from the web because it is easier to just paste it in here--I hope. (I've had problems in the past with pasting in text.)

  The reference here comes from the Center for Judaic-Christian Studies, authored by Dwight A. Pryor. I'm going to try to paste in the critical sections; the entire text can be found at www.jcstudies.com/oneGodandLord.html

  >>>

  ...when Israel affirms the Shema it acknowledges the indivisible unity of Y/H/W/H. The Hebrew word ehad speaks of unity not singularity. The One and Only God is a unity of all that he is-was-will be, of all his attributes, actions and appearances. Though he has many names, there are not many gods. The plural noun, Elohim, always takes a singular verb in the Hebrew when referring to the God of Israel. God's majesties are many and his manifestations manifold, but in himself he is indivisibly One.

  ...

  The textual revelation of ehad as oneness-in-unity is found from the very beginning of the Torah, in Genesis 1.5: "vay'hi erev, vay'hi voker, yom ehad" ("And it was evening, and it was morning, day one.") This first occurrence of ehad in the Bible unites two parts of a day, evening and morning, into one/ehad. No less telling is the use of ehad with reference to adam or humankind in Genesis 2.4. When the male and the female unite as husband and wife, "v'hayu l'vasar ehad" - "they shall become one flesh (body)." Two persons, equal but distinct, become inseparably joined together as one/ehad. In another instance, looking toward the end of all things, the prophet Ezekiel foresees a time when the children of Israel will be fully united, when the two "sticks" of Judah and Ephraim are joined in God's hand to become one/ehad.

  That ehad is used this way in the biblical text is important. Ehad points to unity, not singularity (yahid), and the implications of that bear profoundly upon the nature and character of the God of Israel. Consider, for example, the creation of humankind (adam), made in the image of God. Why does God make one person, then from the one make two (Adam v'Havvah), in order that the two shall become one? If ‘one' is the starting point, how can it also be the goal? Because man alone is yahid, a singularity, but when the two become ehad, a unity is achieved that far surpasses singularity. From the one, God forms two-that-become-one because he wants humankind to learn how to love. In singularity only self-love is possible; to love truly it takes an ‘other'. In learning how to love one's corresponding other, one learns how to love God.

  ...

  This veneration of Yeshua with and connected to Y/H/W/H is permissible only if he in some way is within the ehad of God. Otherwise such attributions of scriptures, functions, authority, power, and identity to him that apply exclusively to the God of Israel would violate the Shema's monotheism.

  If in any way Jesus as the Son is outside the sphere of God's ehad - whether as a godly man ‘adopted' by God and elevated to the highest place; or as a supernatural, ‘divine agent', maybe even the first-born of all creation, come down from heaven as a man - in either case Yeshua the Son remains outside the ehad of God and compromises his uniqueness, exclusiveness and indivisible unity. Quite simply, within a Jewish frame of reference, the risen Lord Jesus can be worshipped with HaShem only if in some ontological sense he operates within the oneness of God, i.e., is divine. Y/H/W/H shares his glory with no one; worship/service is reserved exclusively for him alone.
• 
  92

  Does Genesis 1:26 support Devine Trinity???

  by zagor in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i've seen several comments about trinity, so here goes another one: .

  please read again genesis 1:26

  this is very interesting paragraph and many times is being used as a proof of trinity as it says let us create .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  hmike

  Why can't more discussions about controversial topics be plesant like this?

  Zagor, since you're a student of Hebrew, would you be interested in offering input on an earlier post I made in this thread?

  This is relevant to the original topic: has anyone ever posted a study on echad (or ehad or ekhad, I've seen it all ways) from Deut. 6:4, "Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one (echad)." Can somebody supply the link, or take a fresh look?

  I've read a few commentaries on echad in this context, and I was hoping to get some input from our scholars here, but so far, no takers.