Posts by Death to the Pixies

73

Why do apostates lie about where they get their information?

by slimboyfat in

jw
friends

it does no good.

i don't understant it - who do they think they're foolin'?.

i have just been listening to the judicual committee that disfellowshipped rick and laverne townsend and it is cringeworthy, to say the least, to listen to them cover-up, distort and outright lie about the sources of their information and the real background to their dissent.

Death to the Pixies

I have noticed that too, especially from Jws turned Evangelical. In a recent discussion, a fella painted It like they actually feel they woke up one day and decided John 17:3-5 speaks of an eternal relationship in the God-head and it has nothing to do with some silly Ron Rhodes "Answers to Jws" book. Or how they portray the idea that they, thru diligent study of scripture, believe in the hypostatic union. Right. I think X-Jws, do not want people to think they traded one set of blinders in for the next, so their new found freedom, to them, has to be because of thier independent study of scripture and WT literature. No one wants to publicly admit (that is in real life away from their computers) that the internet is what shaped their opinions, it is not cool zeus. "Internet" is a dirty word when it comes to accuracy in political circles, so I think people stay away from that for that reason. I mean how many people in the 1990's to 2000's would cite the Wts policy on beastality in the 70's as a reason for thier new view of Jws if it were not for Ray Franz? Probably only a dog-humper or someone who married a dog-humper. But, we see this quoted all the time on various forums.

8

Family Guy mention of Jehovah's Witnesses

by pratt1 in

jw
friends

did anyone see the family guy episode this week that had peter singing the praises of being rich.. .

one line in the song was you can stop the "jehoovahs at the gate" , they showed a witness being stopped at the gate while getting smacked in the head with a watchtower.. .

i love this show, especially stewie..

Death to the Pixies

Family Guy is pathetic, South Park says so.

13

Witness Books NOT published by the Society?

by Priest73 in

jw
friends

i stumbled accross this website today.

http://www.theocraticlibrary.com/

it calls about a bunch of authors as witnesses?!?!

Death to the Pixies

Flemings and Byatt themselves (the editors) write a few articles on various subjects that are quite poor.

SBF, what articles did you find poor by Byatt/Flemings. I thought Byatt did a good job "distinguishing the Lords".

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

Just a quick note, here is editor of the Anchor bible commentary, G.Buchannan on legal agency:

I have had not had any basis for changing my views expressed in this book, but I have had many reasons for updating it and clarifying many of the points. You will find them given more clearly in my book Biblical and Theological Insights from Ancient and Modern Civil Law(Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press,c1992) and Revelation:Its Introduction and Commentary(Lewiston: Mellen, c1993). One of the important distinctions to be made is between legal identity and ontological identity. A legal agent is indentical legally to the principal who sent him or her even though the principal and agent are ontologically different people. Suppose, for instance, that the queen of England(a principal)appoints an ambassador(a legal agent) to negotiate with the president of the USA. Even if the ambassador is a male, 21 years old, 6ft feet tall, and weighs 250lbs., legally he is identical to the queen. i.e. he is legally the queen. Anything he negotiates is done in the name of the queen, in the interests of the queen, and at the responsibilty of the queen. It has all the authority of the crown behind it. Rabbis said the man's agent was like the man himself. Legally, this large, young, male is the small, female queen. A legal agent is an apostle. Many kings were considered legal agents of the deity. The pharaoh, for example, was called the son of two different deities at once. This is physically impossible, but not legally. Legally, but not physically or ontologically, these kings were called gods. Just as the ambassador was the queen, so a king is God, legally. In John 14, for instance, Jesus said, "He that has seen me has seen the Father." That is like saying, "He that has seen the ambassador has seen the queen." But in the same chapter, Jesus said, "But the Father is greater." In the commentary you read, I distinguished between God himself and Jesus. I would now use the words "legal" and "ontological" to express this difference; the meaning is the same.

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

Jesus did not say to "honor my authority," He said to HONOR THE SON. The Son is a PERSON.

But the context here is the authority this person has (which previously the Father had) received over judgement.

The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be equal to God after Jesus said He had equal authority over the Sabbath with His Father, and that God was His Own Father -- that He was The Son of God in a unique way. So, are you claiming that when Jesus called God His Father, He only meant that in a "legal" sense????

By claiming God as his own Father, he was saying that his words were not original but he was speaking, as an agent, for God. That would be the alleged "equality". God in this text is not a poly-personal being, but the Father.

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

True, the Greek word for "worship" (proskyneo) can mean either religious worship of a god or simply an act of respectful honor/obeisance to a king or other human/angel. But how do YOU determine which verses are speaking of religious worship and which are speaking of respectful honor/obeisance?

Since there are two clear uses of the term, context would determine. Since you use this as a prooftext, the burden lies square on the Trinitarian.

If the Bible had wanted to teach us to give the same religious worship to Jesus that we give to the Father what would the Bible have said differently than it already says at Hebrews 1:6, Revelation Chapter 5, Philippians 2:5-11, etc.?

If the bible wanted to teach that Solomon was to recieve the same religious worship as God at 1 Chron. 29:20, how would it have been worded? Merely assuming Jesus is God and therefore since "only God" can worshiped in your mind is not an argument. BTW, weren't we talking about the context at John 5 :>)

I agree. But I also believe that Jesus should be worshiped on His own merit, and therefore Jesus is God

Hmmm, Could Jesus be worshiped for fulfilling his own will? No, but the Father can. Anyway, these are not justifications for your assertions imo.

But why do you place Jesus in a distinct category from God when it comes to worship? (See Revelation Chapter 5 where They both receive the same worship).

Because scripture overwhelmingly places Jesus and God in seperate categories. An agent being worshiped (or bowed down to) alongside God is in perfect harmony with agency doctrine, the point is why is the agent being "worshiped" (relative worship, also can mean bow down, prostrate), it is not the same reason that God is being worshiped. In Rev 5 "proskyeno" does not appear til vs 14 and when it does it is ambiguous, but the Lamb is being praised, not because he is God (see vs. 9 where the Lamb is clearly distinct from the God we "only worship") but because he was worthy to take the scroll from the One seated on the Throne (God, not Jesus is seated upon the throne) and only because he has been "slaughtered" (vs.12) and has "bought persons for God" (9-10) is why he is worthy to receive the power and riches..honor and glory. God, otoh, recieves it because he "created all things" (4:11)

We can take away from ch. 5 that Christ is not God, but rather, because of what he has accompolished for God is why he is worthy to be praised alongside God.

So, do you believe that all believers will become divine gods filled with the very essence and nature of God? Or is that reserved only for Christ? If that was not something unique to Christ, then why would Paul even make a big deal about it? If we all have the same divine essence/deity, then how would that make Christ worthy of special honor for having the fullness of Deity?

Oddly enough, the "Fathers" believed that very thing:

Irenaeus, BOOK IV: "...On behalf of which I have proved, in a variety of ways, that the Son of God accomplished the whole dispensation (of mercy) and have shown that, there is none other called God by the Scriptures except the Father of all, and the Son, and those who possess adoption."

Chapter 1: "...Therefore, this is sure and steadfast that no other God or Lord was announced by the spirit, except Him, who, as God, rules over all, together with his Word, and those who received the spirit of adoption..."

Pretty much all of the Fathers taught this, I cannot find all my references, but from Justin to Origen tis true. Eph 3:19 says similar: "That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God". Whatever it is that Christ is filled with, however that makes him "God Almighty" from this verse alone to you, would likewise be given to the elect. But we do not need to draw that conclusion necessarily that they are "gods" becasue they have the fulness, that language while certainly a warranted interpretation, is not an explicit teaching, nor is the point of Colossians 2.

Also, notice Hebrews 6:4:
Hebrews 6:4 (ASV): For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit ,
Just because you are a "partaker" of something does not mean that you become that thing or that person. Those who are partakers of The Holy Spirit do not become the Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit is not a nature, if I say "share in the human nature", what does that mean?

But, if agency best explains this, you still have not explained why God encouraged people to worship "The Angel of the Lord" but He forbade people from worshiping the angel in Revelation, and all angels in Colossians. It is obvious that the worship given to The Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is the religious type worship and not merely obeisance.

The agent principle is that you honor the messenger/agent like you would if it was the superior that sent him. By honoring that Angel who has YHWH "name within him" you are actually honoring YHWH. It is aimed at him thru the agent. Hard as this is for a 21st century Christian to want to understand, this was the custom. You cannot get past the fact that this angel is explicitly distinguished from YHWH, you tried to so with this argument:

Also, the New Testament says Jesus is "The Christ OF The Lord," but it also says Jesus is the Only Lord, the Lord of all, the Lord of Lords, the One Lord. So, if Jesus can be The Christ OF The Lord, and still be The Lord, then He can certainly be The Angel of The Lord and still be The Lord.

But it falls flat I think. You switch-aroo a proper name with a generic title "Lord", even so, as Christ is Lord, God is Lord and even the angel witnessing to John in Rev 7 is "Lord", the grammar here discounts the Angel as being the "Lord" he is of. We are talking about a specific person, this phrase has two seperate indivduals. I think if you put down the theology, you will see the absurdity of saying the Angel is the Lord he is said to be owned by. We are talking about a proper name no less.

Old Testament shows that there are at least Two Persons named Yahweh:
Zechariah 3:1-2 (ESV): Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD , and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him. And the LORD said to Satan, " The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?"
Genesis 19:24 (ESV): Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven .

But yet, Yawheh is one (Deut. 6:4) and he is the Father (Is. 64:8) Jewish idiom restates the subject for emphasis. Consider two Solomon's at 1 Kings 8:1:

"Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the princes of the fathers'

houses of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem.." ASV

I thank you for your tone, you are very respectful, just some helpful advice, these ideas have been debated for a long time, do not feel pressure- or like your beliefs are riding on this discussion- they are not, they will continue to be debated. With that said, I like brief exchanges, don't you :>) Less typing involved the better if you ask this cowboy.

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

Within the Johannine narrative Jesus' implied "equality with God" is what motivates the "Jews" to "kill" him (v. 19, "because"). That this is imo a completely artificial narrative with strawmen "Jews" does not change the inner logic of the text. To the author, the "Jews" did not construe Jesus' "equality with God" as something acceptable to them as a prophet's "legal agency" would be. It was blasphemous, cf. 10:33: "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God." (Ironically, the whole idea is reminiscent of the Israelite's attempt to stone Moses, Exodus 17:4; Numbers 14:10, although on completely different grounds).

Reply: I see you got into this with fjtoth, but I do not see where the Jews did not accept Jesus claim at prophethood, as opposed to him being some kinda wondergod, above any connection to a prophet or agent. They did not like his claim to prophethood, eg.. he breaks the law, condemns us, talks trash about Abraham.. etc..etc.. I still think the agency principle still applies, even if Jesus is unique and greater than the other prophets. messengers and agents of God and he proceeds directly from God.

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

Since you believe that it is okay to worship one of God's representatives as if the representative was God, and you believe that God's representatives can be addressed as if they were God, and honored as if they were God, I have one question for you:
Why does the Bible forbid worshiping God's representative who is speaking for God in the following verses?:
Revelation 19:9-10 (ESV): And the angel said to me , "Write this: Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." And he said to me, "These are the true words of God." Then I fell down at his feet to worship him , but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy

Reply: Because "Worship" is relative to the context and has a wide semantic. This shows that in a special unique sense, only God can be "worshiped", this does not change the fact that others who worship God and represent him are also allowed to recieve a relative worship if it is in accord with God's will. In the book of Revelation itself "worship" is applied in a positive sense to others who are not the Lord God:Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. (American Standard

I would say that only God, on his own merit, is worthy of worship.

Colossians 2:2-10 (ESV): that their hearts may be encouraged, being knit together in love, to reach all the riches of full assurance of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ , in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. I say this in order that no one may delude you with plausible arguments. For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ . Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him , rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily , and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority .
Colossians 2:18-19 (ESV): Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels , going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
How do you explain why Paul said all the fullness of Deity dwells in Christ, and that Christians must never let anyone deceive them into worshiping angels, but should instead live for Christ?

Reply: Regardless if Jesus supercedes other representatives of God, the principle still holds because Jesus is still distinct from the God that we must "only worship" in that special sense. He is still a rep and messenger for God. The fulness of deity is, I believe, also to dwell in the elect, keep reading on in your quote from Colossians:For it is him that all the fulness of god's nature lives embodied, and in union with him you too are filled with it" (American Translation, Goodspeed) This also is in harmony with 2 Peter 1:4:Through which the most precious and great promises have been given to us, so that through these you* shall become participants of a divine nature [or, sharers in [the] divine nature] , having escaped from the corruption [that is] in [the] world by lust.

One last thing to mention:
Most Trinitarians (and even the Watchtower Society in certain publications), believe that "The Angel of the Lord" in the Old Testament was the Pre-Human Jesus Christ, and that is why He is worshiped, prayed to, receives sacrifices, and called Yahweh.

BTW, I hate the fonts on this site, I can get rid of the this stupid red ink, any suggestions?

The "Angel" spoken of is the "Angel of Jehovah", the genitive here almost certainly discounts the idea that this angel is Jehovah himself, because it is of Jehovah, this seems so simple to me, but yet the Robert Morey's of the world still try this identification. Agency best explain this IMO.

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

Just turning your argument head over apex: if "the Jews" were familiar with angels or prophets acting and speaking as Yhwh's "legal representatives/agents," yet did not think of such agents as "making themselves equal to God," this narrative must involve something more than the Jewish notion of "legal agency".)

If we indeed take vs. 18 as saying the Son is equal to the Father legally (this is debateable, the WT explanation also fits context) why would we assume that say, Moses was not equal to God in the same way? The Jews did not accept nor like Jesus so his "above the law" actions would be enough to set them off. I do not have my references on me, but the Law of Moses is likewise considered the Law of God, as Moses himself was legally established as God (ex. 4:16,7:1) Angels themselves were treated like, and called YHWH. (Gen 18,19) I do not believe the Hebrew scrips contradict themselves when they say "One cannot see the (actual) person of God" (Exodus 33:20,23 Jhn 1:18) while the scrips say people had seen the (legal) person of God elsewhere. (Ex 33:11, Jg13:22) Parenthetical statments are mine.

Proposed Gnostic influences aside, Jhn 5:23 with the implications put to us in the first post on this thread,really does not harm the basic unitarian view, in fact it fits nicely with it. At least from his angle.

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?