Posts by Death to the Pixies

50

JW's and John 5:23

by UnDisfellowshipped in

has anyone on this board ever used john 5:23 when talking to jw's?.

unfortunately, one of my friends is currently in a "bible" study with the jw's (and has been since last year).

i asked my friend to ask the jw what john 5:23 means, so my friend did ask the jw who was conducting the "bible" study.

Death to the Pixies

Imo if "John" has no ontological interest then nobody has (cf. his characteristic use of eimi, subtly distinguished from ginomai, in the Prologue, the egô eimi, etc.). But his is not a static ontology -- rather a dynamic one implying procession / generation / mission / revelation and all the way back to the Father along with the elect. To express the first movement (the "exhale" moment in the great breath of the Father, if you will) the metaphor of legal agency is helpful, but what is meant is much more than legal. And it is just one metaphor among many -- sowing / dissemination and harvest / gathering for instance, for just the same "cycle".

Reply: I am limiting my words to John 5 and "honor the Son as the father", I believe contextually this is limited to the authority given to Jesus over the resurrection, judgement. You know, again this principle," while the Son is doing the works of the Father, honor him as if it was the Father himself doing these works"... I guess his nature would not have to be excluded necessarily, it is just not what John has in mind here in his teaching. I do not see nature being in view in this phrase.

I believe you mean to say that because the Son proceeds or is generated from the Father that they are equal because of this..but also the elect are equal as well? Forgive me if I misunderstood. I do not believe John does not discuss the ontological relationship between God and Son (eg, John 1:1, jhn 14:28). just not at John 5, where legal agency seems quite real. I see vs. 23 discussing authority, the type of authority that one who spoke for God would have, an equal authority. Is it a metaphor? I am not sure what you mean here or why it would change what I said.

But the JW version (which practically means neither god nor man) is no less static and even more shallow if you ask me.

Reply: Chhh, but who asked you! :>) What you call "ontological choreography" would still include the idea, that Jesus on his own , cannot "raise the dead" (John 5) "judge man" (vs. 28) or even "have life in himself" (5:26) or, be able to live at all (John 6:57). You can speculate endlessly what John 1:1 means exactly, but it would not erase the whole of John's subordination, by nature. Would you not agree?

50

JW's and John 5:23

by UnDisfellowshipped in

has anyone on this board ever used john 5:23 when talking to jw's?.

unfortunately, one of my friends is currently in a "bible" study with the jw's (and has been since last year).

i asked my friend to ask the jw what john 5:23 means, so my friend did ask the jw who was conducting the "bible" study.

Death to the Pixies

I agree with you that the Jews believed that a representative sent by someone should be honored like (but NOT necessarily to the same degree) you would treat the person who sent the representative. Jesus Christ Himself taught this:

Reply: You wrote a lot, much of which I do not care to read thru (sorry too much work:>)), but your point is understood. Just a couple observation from me:

1.) "Like", "Just as" I think you are making an issue here that does not exist. It is the authority we are to "honor" (not worship) like the Father "to the same degree", it is not a nature discussion in John ch. 5. "Worship" does not exist here, at least from the context of this verse. I truly believe if you read this outside of Trinitarian a priori assumption you will see this. I Your point becomes increasingly strained when we realize there are varying degress of "proskyneo" (greek for worship) that can be rightfully applied to God's agents. (1 Chron. 29:20)

2.)I have no problem seeing "equality" in John 5:18-9 (if that is the correct understanding, it is debate-able and I leave room for both possibilities) but the equality would clearly be in a legal sense given the context, not an ontological one. Read Jesus' response in vs 19:

Then answered Jesus, and said to them, Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son can do nothing by himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for whatever things he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

If we take this as having anything other than legality (ie not nature) in view you have an inconsistent exegesis of this chapter, in which you must switch between the supposed divine and human natures of Jesus. For instance, vs. 18 would apply to his divine, vs 19 to his human, 23- divine, 26-human etc..etc..

Agents, even of God, are legally equivalent to God . The angel in Exodus 23:20-21 even had YHWHs name within him, so for legal purpses he was YHWH..

60

my cat died today... i need consoling...

by theinfamousone in

jw
friends

this is the guy that sat on my razor blades the one time i was thinking of cutting myself... this is the guy that everytime my dad beat me, would come to my room and lay with me... this is the guy that one time jumped into the bathtub with me while i was crying after a brutal beating, the cat hated water... this is a cat that was more family to me than my own father and mother combined... this was my best friend... .

today i had to do the hardest thing i ever did, i had to choose to have him put down... and as he fought the vet, and tried to bite her, i put my hand on his head, and he stopped struggling... and as they put the last needle into his leg, he purred until he died... the vet says she has never seen that before... this was my best friend and i had to kill him... fuck, im a baby, but i miss him soooo much.

the infamous one.

Death to the Pixies

I guarantee you , you will be fine in a week, maybe two. I went thru about a weeklong period where humans just seemed un-improtant to me.Thinking about Humans dying just seemed weak in comparison. It is weird how that stuff happens, but animals really do have an innocence that humans can't give you. I am not sure how I am helping you, but..anyway, you have my condolences.

60

my cat died today... i need consoling...

by theinfamousone in

jw
friends

this is the guy that sat on my razor blades the one time i was thinking of cutting myself... this is the guy that everytime my dad beat me, would come to my room and lay with me... this is the guy that one time jumped into the bathtub with me while i was crying after a brutal beating, the cat hated water... this is a cat that was more family to me than my own father and mother combined... this was my best friend... .

today i had to do the hardest thing i ever did, i had to choose to have him put down... and as he fought the vet, and tried to bite her, i put my hand on his head, and he stopped struggling... and as they put the last needle into his leg, he purred until he died... the vet says she has never seen that before... this was my best friend and i had to kill him... fuck, im a baby, but i miss him soooo much.

the infamous one.

Death to the Pixies

My cat died last spring, she got ran over.. It is very sad, but we are not really allowed to grieve the way we feel. ,I am not really making such a comparison (or I am and I feel stupid for doing so) but it feels like you have lost a child. Animals look up to you and you are their life. There is a certain responsibility you feel toward them in a way similar to a child. Granted, in the end it is just a cat, so you can get over it in few days, but it still really hurts and it does suck.

50

JW's and John 5:23

by UnDisfellowshipped in

has anyone on this board ever used john 5:23 when talking to jw's?.

unfortunately, one of my friends is currently in a "bible" study with the jw's (and has been since last year).

i asked my friend to ask the jw what john 5:23 means, so my friend did ask the jw who was conducting the "bible" study.

Death to the Pixies

This is basic Jewish agency which states to .." Honor the Agent as you would if it was the superior who sent him", as the ALT says:

"The one not honoring the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him."

The context is not worship, but rather delegation and imitation:

"For neither does the Father judge anyone, _but_ He has given all judgment to the Son,"

So basically, while the Son is imitating the works of the Father and doing the work that Father has given him to do, we are to honor the Son just as we would if it was the Father himself doing these acts, because ultimately it is, vs 30:

"I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father who hath sent me.:

Kinda like when we were kids and our father would put our older brother in charge while he went away, we were to honor and obey that brother's (who had authority placed upon him) orders just like we would our Father's.

Sorry, no trinity here gang :>)

45

What is your favorite Bible Translation?

by Lo-ru-hamah in

do you have a favorite translation?

king james, niv, or others that i might not of heard of that are perhaps more poetically written.

or a style/version that you particularly like?.

Death to the Pixies

Course the WT jerks always say that they are the ones that restored the divine Name to the Bible. (1950) Little late.

That is a dumb comment, the Jws have always spoken well of the American Standard and it's use of the DN. Have you read the New American Standard?

45

What is your favorite Bible Translation?

by Lo-ru-hamah in

do you have a favorite translation?

king james, niv, or others that i might not of heard of that are perhaps more poetically written.

or a style/version that you particularly like?.

Death to the Pixies

1.) New World Translation

2.) New American Bible (Catholic Bibles are better than Evangelical bibles in my opinion)

3.)Jerusalem Bible (Find "Yahweh" unique)

4.)Goodspeed American Translation

5.) New KJ Interlinear

20

JW's give advice on how to get rid of apostate literature

by unbeliever in

jw
friends

i know we have had threads on this board about getting rid of jw literature.

they make a lot of the same suggestions, throw it away, use it as liner for the pets, etc but some of their suggestions are down right hilarious.

one poster said the literature should be dipped in acid and one poster said she wipes her dogs butt with apostate literature.. http://ewatchman-exposed.co.uk/research/read.php?t=2196&reply=13#msg13.

Death to the Pixies

A great commentary on the JW education: They can't spell "tear", but they CAN spell "literature".
First rule of forming a cult: Pick a group of people for everyone to truly hate.
Dave

That board is rather odd, if not silly... The guy who wrote that does not have the luxury of English being his native language. I am sure if he can write as well as he does in a second language he could probably shame us all with his education. Well, at least us stupid Americans anyhow. It always makes me laugh when people on this board are so quick to point out grammatical boo-boo's. Are we overcompensating?

137

New World Translation Brackets!!

by gold_morning in

for what it is worth i wanted to pass this along.. we are all aware of those convienient brackets used in the new world translation.

the infamous colossians 1:16....."because by means of him all ((((other)))))) things were created...".

at the very bottom of the first page of their bible ...the foreword.... it says.

Death to the Pixies

is inserted without OT basis

The "OT basis" is the fact that "Lord God" is an allusion to "Jehovah" God of the OT. "Lord" being a curious surrogate and titular tautology (in the sense of referring to him by two titles)from a book that has great appreciation for the name of God. (see Rev 15:3, 3:12) Also to note it is impossible from the book of Revelations to identify Jesus with the "Lord God", they are often mentioned in the same context, but in every case Jesus is distinct from the "Lord God". (again cf. 15:3)

With that said there is no real basis to conclude that the use of the DN in vs. 6 of ch. 22 makes an unwarranted distinction between the Lord God of vs. 6, with Jesus of vs. 7,16. Keep in mind that the Nestle-Aland Greek text has vs. 13-15 being a quote from Is. 40:10, which shows God and his servant, "his arm" being distinguished as well.

Major edit:

Last part of my post contained mistakes on my part of the JW view of this! So I deleted it, I should be more careful eh? .

239

Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider in

i 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

Nah, he is not, you just do not understand the hypostatic union . Neither God nor Angel ( they divine,spirit natures, Jhn 4:24) is a nature.... the life-force of one who had a *spirit, divine* nature being transferred into a human nature does not in anyway resemble the hypostatic union which maintains that both natures are kept simultaneously. .