Posts by CalebInFloroda

29

JW's are semi-trinitarians and do not understand the Sacret Secret

by paradisebeauty in

i have been searching pro and anti arguments for trinity, and found out there are anti-trinitarians who believe jesus did not preexist before his human life.

and i am thinking, it kind of makes sense.

what if yahweh created a second adam.

CalebInFloroda

There are too many conditions in these theories which are based solely on Watchtower theology to be acceptable to Christianity.

The original meaning of "only begotten Son" in Christianity is based on both the Semitic idiom of "son" and that used by ancient Hellenistic Roman society. Remember the "sons of thunder" of Mark 3.17? They weren't the literal male offspring of thunder. Luke 10.16's "son of peace" is not the male offspring of the absence of war. And Judas Iscariot was not the male offspring of perdition merely because Jesus called him "the son of destruction" at John 17.12.

No, a "son of thunder" is a thunderous or boisterous person, a "son of peace" is a peaceful soul and Judas met his own destruction or was destroyed. This term "son," except when used in genealogies and the like, means to be "one and the same with," or the personification of the subject.

Jesus being the "Son of God" as written in the Gospels meant in the eyes of early Christians that he was an incarnation of YHWH (though the Trinitatrian formula was still absent until at least a century later). It doesn't mean that he was literally begotten anymore than kings in David's line were literally begotten by God even though they are said to be such as at Psalm 2. The term "only begotten Son" meant that Jesus was viewed as the incarnation of YHWH, the "only" one anointed or selected to act as such a physical representation.

The JW description is primitive and has no connection to the etymology of the past. It reads the texts as if the English meaning behind words is the primary reading.

The "Son of God" cannot be a created being by definition, which is why the Nicene Creed states that Jesus is "begotten not made." (Again compare how God begets a king in David's line on the day of that king's anointing, not the day of his birth at Psalm 2.) To "beget" a king meant the day God set him on his throne or even the day he was anointed or appointed to be such a king representative of God. It never meant God directly created the ruling king.

As a Jew I don't believe in the whole Jesus or Trinity thing, but I do know the doctrine that I reject very well. I also know that the early Christians never meant to go against the principles of Shema in their theology of Jesus as "Son of God." Instead they intended that this contact with Jesus was a manifestation that required an epiphany on behalf of the believer, an epiphany like Doubting Thomas had that the one Christians were identifying as Messiah was also the God of the Shema.

As such there was no creation of a literal offspring of God to be born as a human to be Messiah. On the contrary, the Trinity doctrine was developed to explain how a God that transcends time and space could enter history while at the same time transcending it, die while at the same time remain undying, be seen while at the same time not being able to be seen.

To introduce a literal second individual who is not this same God as do the JWs would make producing the Trintiy doctrine unnecessary. But the fact that there is such a doctrine demonstrates the problems that arose when the acts attributed to Jesus of Nazareth could in no way be attributed to a mere mortal without defying Shema, something that Christians knew could never be done. The Trintiy was their solution.

11

Bible and Mentally Challenged, what does it say.

by James Mixon in

special olympics today here in los angeles, the smiles on those kids faces.. i wonder how were they viewed in jesus day, demon possessed.. it's strange how the bible omit some issues, like slavery and mentally challenged.

folks.

thank god for humanitarian..

CalebInFloroda

Actually the Hebrew Scriptures do not attribute disabilities to sin as Jews never had a concept of original sin. It is first in the New Testament that you read of a connection between illness and sin and sometimes described as demon possession. This Christian connection remains alive today, but it is not part of Judaism.

In the Tanakh physical imperfections were seen as being far from the ideal reflection of G-d, and this at first caused a lot of injustice for those who were challenged in ancient times. Only perfect male specimens could act as priests, and certain types of challenges were once barriers to disabled foreigners who wished to become a part of Israel.

But by the time of the Second Temple era this began to change. The Judaic ideal transformed from bodily integrity to one of intellectual capacity, and with this change came the reasoning that physical and mental disabilities were not obstacles in measuring one's relation to the perfection reflected from G-d as previously believed.

The Temple cult with its demands on perfect animal sacrifices however only held back progress in this area, so it was not until the Second Temple fell that these changes began progressive moves toward just treatment of the challenged and became permanent features of Tikkun Olam.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

Postscript: Of course you could just be pointing out something that you missed from my previous comments or misread, so that could be the reason you raised it.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

@jhine

I don't believe I ever stated that Christians or atheists don't work toward making the world a better place. In fact I know that atheists do because a lot of Jews are atheists and a lot of the humanitarian efforts I support have many non-affiliated atheists involved or even at the helm.

I can also list Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and others who are likewise involved in very important relief and support efforts as well or that I have had the pleasure of working with. I've worked closely with Catholic Charities USA for years for example.

My question to you is why would you raise this issue? I don't think I've ever inferred that others don't work toward the betterment of society. In fact, Jews know we can't do it alone as we make up only 0.2% of the population. The "you're-not-the-only-ones-who- do-it-you-know" comment puzzles me.

35

DOES BELIEF IN THE BIBLE DESTROY ONE'S INTELLECTUAL CAPACITY?

by TerryWalstrom in

based on information to be found at: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/when_dont_the_highly_educated_believe_in_evolution_the_bible_believers_effe/.

the bible-believers effect.

those who believe the bible is the word of god (bible believers) and those who dont believe the bible is the word of god (bible nonbelievers) differ in their beliefs that humans evolved from earlier species of animals.

CalebInFloroda

I like the way you put that, Terry. "Blind spots" is a perfect description.

45

People should learn more about the Bible flaws

by opusdei1972 in

i have noted that the main problem for those who are seduced by the watchtower society is their ignorance about the bible itself.

people who believe that the bible is the word of god usually ignore the studies on textual criticism and how scientific criteria forbid absurd stories like that of the global flood.

so, i strongly believe that students in schools need at least an obligatory course on "the bible" through the point of view of science and the textual criticism.

CalebInFloroda

Megaboy does have academia behind him and his comments on the flood.

The best philology on the Noah narrative goes like this: a real man known as Noah, did save himself and his household and animals from a tragic but localized flood in the Mesopatamian basin, one that may have been extremely tragic to the surrounding communities. His survival therefore was likely attributed to divine providence as most cultures of the time would have done. End of original story.

Jump into the future at the time of the Babylonian captivity. Among other things Jews are appalled to discover from witnessing heathen worship is their own story of Noah turned into a horrendous tale explaining the superiority and non mercy of Babylonian gods. When Babylon falls, the Jews incorporate these details into the Noah narrative to tease the Babylonians because their gods proved failures. The heathen version is altered into a lesson that the G-d of Abraham and Sarah is not one that wants to flood the world with water like the heathen gods. The G-d of the Jews is one that redeems humankind and creation from tragedy, even promises not to allow such tragedy to repeat in the future.

The above is very simplified, you understand, but the theory does match what records this Mesopatamian flood infultrated and how critical analysis sees a pattern that allowed it to grow into legendary status among many cultures.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@lieu

Forgive me if I offended you. I meant to point out that your references to what it meant to be Torah obedient left out Halachic interpretation, but I assume I went further than that in your opinion? Sorry if I did.

I'm a Jew and I don't think any of us Jews have a full understanding of our own Jewish concepts, IMHO. It's far more than what we can obtain from merely reading Scripture, that's for sure....so at times to hear a non-Jew who has never learned about Halacha or kashrut, mitzvot, Talmud, or Midrash and presumes that everything that needs to be known can be understood by a non-Jew by simply reading a Gentile translation of the Old Testament...well that can set off a few bells in the Jewish head.

But you are correct. I cannot judge what your entire knowledge of Judaism is by merely one post of yours. For all I know you are my rabbi on the other end.

If you are I will be a little late to Shabbat service tonight.

35

Where did Jesus get the Idea of an After-life in Heaven?

by John Aquila in

the ancient jews did not believe in an after-life as far as i can tell, correct me if i'm wrong.

the watchtower says yes.

they say all the prophets believed in a paradise earth..

CalebInFloroda

It should be noted that the word "resurrection" is a Greek term that does not appear in the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Greek it means the literal re-animation of the corporeal body, or as the term simply means "to stand up [again]."

The JWs use this term incorrectly because they often speak of people being "resurrected to heavenly life," and in fact you can often use that as an indicator of even an exJW sometimes.

Neither in Scripture nor mainstream Christian eschatology can you say that someone is "resurrected" to spirit life. The term and theology requires that a corporeal form is coming back to life. Spirits are generally considered to be immortal and incorporeal and therefore never need to and cannot be "resurrected." In Acts 17 some Greeks find Paul's speech laughable because he mentions the concept of "resurrection" which is contrary to the pagan view that only a spirit life awaits us after death. If the term could be applied to life after death as an immortal soul or spirit, this would not have been the reaction. But since "resurrection" refers to new life in a physical body, the Greeks found this ridiculous and unnecessary.

So JWs are actually showing how uneducated they are by using the term "resurrection" to refer to entry into heaven life.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@Opusdei

in line with you last comments, the answer is a definitive "yes" from Catholic Church scholars, at least in reference to texts that are clearly redactions.

Convservative Catholics in the United States hate and have disowned the official Catholic translation of the Bible for use in America, the NABRE, because it contains in its footnotes philology citing texts like these as likely interpolations to the text. This, as you can imagine, has altered some doctrinal issues (likely for the better), and while the majority of Catholics are satisfied, conservatives in the Church call the work heretical.

This smaller group of Catholics in the U.S. has been very vocal and even resurrected the older text of the RSV Catholic edition as an alternative. But as you can imagine the USCCB will have none of it, not even including the RSV Catholic edition as an approved translation on its website.

The NABRE is the work of some 100 scholars from several denominations, has been in production since 1946 and will be officially completed by 2025 (the current 2011 edition is an ad-hoc "holdover" version). It is really outstanding and has been praised even by Jews and referred to as the cause of Bible-envy by one popular Protestant reviewer.

To see it rejected by its own people by such a vocal group is actually disheartening for me, and I'm not even Catholic! It appears to me that regardless of the scholarship and critical approaches involved and the beautiful and accurate results that can be obtained, some people are determined to remain in the dark and want to pull others down into the dark with them.

63

How dishonest was the Apostle Paul?

by opusdei1972 in

may be some of you will be shocked by this question.

however, when i was studying the bible with critical eyes i detected that paul ( or saul of tarsus) misquoted the hebrew bible in order to get false support for his arguments.

of course, this tricky kind of use of the "scriptures" was not only used by him, but others, like the author of the gospel of matthew got unsupported doctrines misquoting verses.

CalebInFloroda

@John Aquila

I do know that Jewish women could read in synagogues of the Second Temple era, and there are some indicators that some had to act as prayer leaders and even in a capacity similar to rabbis. Lydia of Thyatira seems to have been a convert to Judaism that acted in such a capacity according to Acts 16.

While I know that Chrisitans often use the verse you mention to claim that Paul was following some Jewish practice of not allowing women to teach, that restriction only came into Judaism after the fall of the Second Temple and did not last very long. Judaism has generally remained quite egalitarian throughout most of its history (not that we didn't have our dark times however). Today only Orthodox Jews carry such restrictions.

But pagans were not this way. They treated women quite differently in society. Paul must be referring to his rules that he was establishing as an apostle to the Gentiles, much like the head covering rule, for churches he was establishing. Outside of this I cannot say what else Paul had in mind because it doesn't reflect Jewish practices.