spirit of truth is identical to the force mentioned in Jewish lit at about this time... So to me it means that the Father thru Jesus, imparts truth to us. The spirit, being the truth, will also testify that Jesus is indeed from the Father.
Death to the Pixies
JoinedPosts by Death to the Pixies
-
6
Could someone shed light on John 15:26,27?
by AK - Jeff in26"but when the helper comes, whom i will send to you from the father, the spirit of truth, who proceeds from the father, he will bear witness about me.
27and you also will bear witness, because you have been with me from the beginning.. though i am not trinitarian at this point, this verse seems to add some thinking in that direction to me.
jesus saying that the 'helper' comes from the father, but also that he, jesus, would send it.
-
-
-
113
Luke 23:43 the NWT
by Ade inluke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.
nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.
now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
I never really considered this point as a JW, the punctuation used in this verse was used by Jesus on many occasions 76 times in the NT, heres the big hitter to ask your visiting JW or family member. Why is the comma placed there in this verse but in every other instance where Jesus says this phrase the comma comes after the first instance of the word you.
Just a quick note here, there is a signif diff with the usage at Luke 23 compared to the ones cited by NWT critics, only in Luke 23 does "today" follow "truly I tell you" which would suggest the aforementioned Jewish idiom which would palce the emphasis on the occasion. One of my favorite moments in Bgreek is when Co-owner Carl Conrad said this:
Perhaps it's not that big an issue, but I did want to report to the list
that I have changed my thinking 180 degrees on this issue after reading
what Greg Stafford wrote yesterday and reviewing the archived list
correspondence--and in particular two messages from August 1, 1996 that I
shall cite below. Since this is our own publicly accessible list-archives,
I haven't felt any obligation to request permission from the original
senders to cite these messages.
I should add one other note: while I still believe that it is
grammatically--syntactically--legitimate to understand SHMERON with the
clause following it and qualifying the predicate ESHi MET' EMOU EN TWi
PARADEISWi--and I would expect that many will continue to prefer to read it
that way, I have personally come around to think that associating the
SHMERON with AMHN LEGW SOI is not only likely but that Jesus-saying here
cited in Luke's narrative seems better suited to its context. I'll add too,
that while some may have theological reasons for wanting to understand
SHMERON with ESHi MET' EMOU ..., my own thinking here has more to do with a
judgment of historical probability in the context. (Jan 15, 2000,Bgreek) -
113
Luke 23:43 the NWT
by Ade inluke 23:43 - and jesus said to him, "positively i say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.
nwt places comma here , giving a totally different meaning to the verse.
now the average jw uses this to back their doctrine and it seems in itself virtually impossible to reason with them on it.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
Jesus could have been stressing the solemnity of the occasion, as this was not uncommon jewish idiom, see similar words in Deut. 4:26,40...5:1. Probably the NWT was most influenced by one of the oldest Greek MSS which has similar puncuation than the NWT/Rotherham's...as seen below :
The above is the Vatican Manuscript 1209, one of the oldest surviving MSS. It is really just a theological argument, if you tend to believe like the orthodox in regards to after-life, you will place the comma like the orthdox. If you believe the spirit is simply the life-force which animates, you will place it similar to the NWT.
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
All JWs know Jesus was part Man and part Angel or a human / angel hybrid. He was a human with the life force of an angel.
I have never heard that, is this an actual WT teaching? you can prove this with documentation?
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
But if he was an angel before he came to earth, what became of his angelness while he was on earth? Did he leave it in heaven, so that part of Jesus was in heaven and part of him was on earth? Did he just materialize a body, but was still an angel? But, if he were still an angel then how could he be lower than the angels while on earth? Exactly what became of Michael the archangel? Is he still in existence?
Not to answer for Mondo, but Hebrews 2:7 says Jesus was made lower than the angels (the gods Ps. 8) which implies he no longer held onto his previous nature, which as we believe was as a divine spirit being..angel..logos/wisdom.... Phillipians 2 also tells us that whatever nature he enjoyed in heaven, he gave it up or emptied it, which alone puts some serious strain on the God-man doctrine. Two natures co-existing.... and that whole thing.
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
Do ya mean those self-same authors who made the simple connection that Christ was Divine
Yep, them same ones. By the way, Jws speak of Jesus' divinity. By and large they spoke of Jesus' divinity differently than do Modern Trinitarians. The "simple point" that was not commented on was that we have both biblical authors, and the earliest commentators that make this "simple" connection. Kinda makes you wonder why many Evangelicals choose not to.
-
239
Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?
by Hellrider ini have been having an argument in this thread, which originally was about the trinity (oh no, not again.... http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/121719/1.ashx.
...with mondo1, about what the text in revelation 1.17 means.
i don`t want this thread to turn into another trinity-thread, let`s just keep it to the phrase "the first and the last", and revelation, and jesus` status in this text.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
Just a thought. but the Evangelical denial of The Son/Logos=Wisdom in my opinion can be overturned by simply pointing to two lines of evidence:
1.)The Apostle Paul and the author of Hebrews directly quote from Jewish Wisdom lit., as Hebrews 1:3 explicitly alludes to WIsdom of Solomon at 7:25. Here the language is unambiguously applied to Christ. Col. 1 (discussed earlier) uses this as a Christological back-drop, in his pre-human state nonetheless.
2.) The Early Church almost entirely makes this simple connection. (Justin, Origen..etc..etc) The same people who played key roles in making what is now Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy- made this connection. There is little historical inconsistency in this interpretation.
Those who wish to overturn it by showing different ways in which wisdom is used (and it is used in many different ways) and spoken of, have a hard time dealing with the history.
-
7
Greg Stafford/Robert Morey Gods' ominpotence
by Death to the Pixies inmost of you may not care, but in the link there is a debate between the two on this subject:.
.
http://podcast.unchainedradio.com/.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
Most of you may not care, but in the link there is a debate between the two on this subject:
-
37
JW-apologists - and who survives Armageddon?
by Hellrider inlately i`ve been in conflict with jw-apologists on wikipedia in my country.
the most annoying thing is when the jws are trying to rewrite doctrine to make it sound more humane than it really is.
everyone on this board, everyone who ever was a jw or were raised as a jw,knows what the real doctrine is on this issue.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
Room for individual interpretation.
-
15
DO THE GB 'BIND THINGS ON EARTH"?
by Mary inwe all know that the the wts does not believe in the catholic church's claim to having the keys of the kingdom or to "bind on earth the things bound in heaven" as it states im matthew 16:19.. my question is: does the society teach that whatever decisions the governing body makes is "bound in heaven"?
i tried finding something on the wt cd rom but couldn't find anything.. .
is there an official or even unofficial view of the gb and this scripture?.
-
-
Death to the Pixies
Typical double-talk. On one hand, they're saying that they can determine what's been decide in heaven, but just to make sure they have an 'out' when they screw up (which they always manage to), they tell you that they can't really determine what heaven thinks after all, but you should just ignore that.
I think what they are saying that in our time what is decided in heaven has been written down in scripture for us to discern (with our own human limitations) and the gift given humans to "loose and bind" is now gone in the congregation. I do not think it is double-talk. As always, my own human limitations could suggest I am wrong.
