Posts by Mondo1

47

Luke 16: 19-24

by vlad in

19but a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence.20but a certain beggar named laz arus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers21and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man.

yes, too, the dogs would come and lick his ulcers.22now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of abraham.. also, the rich man died and was buried.23and in ha des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw abraham afar off and laz arus in the bosom [position] with him.24so he called and said, father abraham, have mercy on me and send laz arus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because i am in anguish in this blazing fire.. my old account does not seem to be working, so i am not a new member but i did not post loads anyway.

i am an now an athiest myself but anytime i ask jws about a scripture they say its pointless discussing it with me becuase i am only doing it to tear them down.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

I see that you were unable to address the questions pertaining to the context of the parable that I presented and you also have not addressed that the rich man and Lazarus were not souls, but that they were in flesh! One does not need to find a distinction between soul and flesh to see the text plainly articulates that they are flesh, not immaterial, outside of the body. The text relates that Lazarus died and was carried away. He was not given another body, he was not outside of his body, he was simply carried away. So too for the rich man, he was simply buried, and from being buried he was "in hades." He was not carried away to hades, he was not given a new body, he was simply there from being buried.

The only time that Jesus disagrees with the Sadducees was on the resurrection. He never disagreed with them on the matter of the soul and that it does not live on after death. So your point is moot.

And as for Jesus in the resurrection, sure others were resurrected, but not in THE resurrection, to immortality, which is the NT focus.

47

Luke 16: 19-24

by vlad in

19but a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence.20but a certain beggar named laz arus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers21and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man.

yes, too, the dogs would come and lick his ulcers.22now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of abraham.. also, the rich man died and was buried.23and in ha des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw abraham afar off and laz arus in the bosom [position] with him.24so he called and said, father abraham, have mercy on me and send laz arus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because i am in anguish in this blazing fire.. my old account does not seem to be working, so i am not a new member but i did not post loads anyway.

i am an now an athiest myself but anytime i ask jws about a scripture they say its pointless discussing it with me becuase i am only doing it to tear them down.

Mondo1

Hellrider,

You miss the point. Jesus' use of story does not mean he is teaching the doctrine that they had, it means only that he was using the story to illustrate something in his parable. You seem to have this false idea that a parable must be based upon reality, which simply is not true. One cannot ignore that this text is not speaking of departed souls, but only whole people, able to drink, able to feel physical pain, etc. The parable, if you watch the context, is speaking of "the rich" and those "who God helps." Who, in context, are these? According to the context, what changed that would correlate to their deaths? And, if you continue reading, what is ever so tiny that one could relate to only a drop of water? If you can answer these questions, reading Luke 15-17, you'll understand the parable perfectly and you'll see how it has nothing to do with teaching of a reality and is merely language that his audience knew so to make it easy for him to relate the lesson.

Now you ask a number of questions about if Jesus did the same thing in other places, and of course he didn't have to! We know 1) that this is based upon a preexisting tradition and 2) Jesus borrowed the language of the tradition and adapted it for his own purposes. He doesn't have to have done this more than once for him to have done it here. The fact that you have issue with taking the figures as symbols or representations of things defined in the context only demonstrates that you have not carefully studied the context!

47

Luke 16: 19-24

by vlad in

19but a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence.20but a certain beggar named laz arus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers21and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man.

yes, too, the dogs would come and lick his ulcers.22now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of abraham.. also, the rich man died and was buried.23and in ha des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw abraham afar off and laz arus in the bosom [position] with him.24so he called and said, father abraham, have mercy on me and send laz arus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because i am in anguish in this blazing fire.. my old account does not seem to be working, so i am not a new member but i did not post loads anyway.

i am an now an athiest myself but anytime i ask jws about a scripture they say its pointless discussing it with me becuase i am only doing it to tear them down.

Mondo1

TheListener,

And the apostle Paul could come up with ways to say things without quoting from Greek poets, but he did it anyway. It makes sense to use something that your audience is familiar with to explain something to them.

47

Luke 16: 19-24

by vlad in

19but a certain man was rich, and he used to deck himself with purple and linen, enjoying himself from day to day with magnificence.20but a certain beggar named laz arus used to be put at his gate, full of ulcers21and desiring to be filled with the things dropping from the table of the rich man.

yes, too, the dogs would come and lick his ulcers.22now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of abraham.. also, the rich man died and was buried.23and in ha des he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments, and he saw abraham afar off and laz arus in the bosom [position] with him.24so he called and said, father abraham, have mercy on me and send laz arus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because i am in anguish in this blazing fire.. my old account does not seem to be working, so i am not a new member but i did not post loads anyway.

i am an now an athiest myself but anytime i ask jws about a scripture they say its pointless discussing it with me becuase i am only doing it to tear them down.

Mondo1

There is much to be said about this verse. The context that leads up to the text is all of parables, starting in chapter 15 and working through 16, which is all a single context, giving indication that it is a parable. It is not dealing with departed souls, but with physical bodies with parts such as tongues, fingers, etc, that can consume water. The name Lazarus is significant in the parable because it means "He who God helps." It is not speaking of the final judgment in Gehenna, the lake of fire, but "hades" which is one of the things to be thrown into the lake. The language is drawn from a known tradition of the Pharisees and so he is using it to illustrate a point, much of which is explained by both the preface provided by Luke and the words of Jesus immediately prior to the parable. So is it teaching hell? No. It is a parable. Is it drawing from language that was used by those who believed in hell? Yes, but only because they knew the existing tradition and it fit the message that he was intending. Mondo

DC Audio

by Mondo1 in

jw
friends

somebody had posted the audio links for download from the district convention before.

does anyone know where that is because i can't find the thread.

thank you.

Mondo1

Somebody had posted the audio links for download from the District Convention before. Does anyone know where that is because I can't find the thread. Thank you.

7

accuracy of the NWT

by TIMBOB in

my po stopped me today.

he usually does, seems like a nice guy.

anyways, he hands me these sheets of paper and said "i thought you might find these interesting".

Mondo1

http://mysite.freeserve.com/newworldtranslation/home.htm

26

Met a small group of Jehovah's Witnesses today

by The wanderer in

jw
friends

met a small group of jehovah's witnesses today a couple of jehovah's witnesses came to my door today.

first my reaction was that i was not interested and i let them know.

that as i was closing the door.. however, after i closed the door it dawned on me to question them.

Mondo1

I will be the first to admit that I have not looking into this issue a lot, but as anyone reviewed this material?

http://www.jehovahsjudgment.co.uk/watchtower-un-ngo/

That *seems* to refute the conspiracy claims and address the arguments made against the WT on this issue. Does anyone have a response to it?

Mondo

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.

Mondo1

Auldsoul,

John here comments on what he himself did, showing that he was the one now commenting by the use of the personal pronoun with a proper name. You are twisting and turning in a vain effort to get away from the most basic point that is seen without dispute. John in both texts uses "I, John" to show that he is now adding his own comments, meaning that the speaker was not the one who was just speaking, but now it was John. In these texts we see John addressing his audience.

My position is substantiated because it can be demonstrated. Unless you are willing to argue that Revelation 1:8 and 22:7 are John speaking, the fact for which I argue is beyond dispute.

There is no reason to reject the idea of such a speaker change in verse 22. In fact, in realizing that Revelation 22:12 is an allusion to a text about the Father from Isaiah 40:10, it becomes even more unlikely that the text is speaking of the Father, not the Son. Factor this in to Revelation 21 where the Father is again seen to be the A&W, and the evidence continues to grow.

Mondo

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

I was thinking about my post and I thought I should clarify something.

I would agree that the substance is eternal. I would disagree that the life is eternal. In other words, Jesus Christ did not always exist, but I believe God formed him of his own substance, of his own being. Once formed, God gave him life. Hence, according to the most ancient punctuation of John 1:4, we read: "What came to be in him was life and the life was the light of men." I believe that after God formed him he then gave him life, and that life came to be in him, much like in the creation account of Adam. We are told that "the life was the light of men" for in the life coming into this one, he created the one that would come to be the Messiah, who is identified as such.

When I say that I agree the substance is eternal, I mean that only to the extent of where it originates. It is not made from nothing, but it is made from God's own substance, which is in itself eternal. Obviously the act of it being made means that Jesus' being was not eternal, but being that it comes from God's own being, it is derived from the eternal.

396

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

by BelieverInJesus in

i live in memphis.

months ago, i had some jw's come by and talk with me.

i'm a believer in the holy bible.

Mondo1

Where we may need to tease out the semantics is over when this occured since I hold that this occured in eternity, which is timeless, rather than specifically after the resurrection. It's akin to the question "when did he become the Son?", to which the answer usually comes "was the Father ever not the Father and, if not, how could he be so without a Son?"

I have commonly heard this argument from Trinitarians and it strikes me as contradictory. The verse says, when translated literally, that God "happily chose" this for Jesus. Now to choose something is an action. An action has to be performed for it to take place, and yet to say that it "occured in eternity" is to really say that it was always this way and so it never really happened as the text says, it just was. But as the text says it happened, how can you accept that it was always so?

Now, on the matter of him being Father without a Son, I believe that the same would be said of him as creator. Since there was not always creation, he has not always been the creator. I suspect the answer to this is found in that he has always had the ability to do it.

An additional significant issue is understanding what is mean by "equality" in the Trinity. Most would hold this to be due to their substance being identical ( a point I know you agree with ). Just as you and I are made of the same substance, we are also equal. That has no bearing on what roles we have in life, wherein one might be another's boss.

I would agree with that, to an extent, but also being made of the same substance, a father and a son are made of the same substance, but the father always comes before the son and while they are made of the same type of stuff, they are not a single being as Trinitarians argue for God. I see the Trinitarian position flatly contradicted in the assertion of them being one being in Hebrews 1:3 though, for Jesus is said to be the copy of God's being, or the copy of his substance. Whenever you have a copy of something you always have two, the original (God the Father) and the copy (Jesus Christ).

The reason I conjoin these subjects is because I see the very essense of the substance of the Divine as having an eternal quality. By their very "Divine nature" they dwell in eternity, and hence are not subject to the constraints of time such as ourselves. Hence they are first and last, and have no need to foresee or tweak events, as they exist in an ever-present "now", or "I AM".

I would agree that the substance is eternal. I would disagree that the life is eternal. In other words, Jesus Christ did not always exist, but I believe God formed him of his own substance, of his own being. Once formed, God gave him life. Hence, according to the most ancient punctuation of John 1:4, we read: "What came to be in him was life and the life was the light of men." I believe that after God formed him he then gave him life, and that life came to be in him, much like in the creation account of Adam. We are told that "the life was the light of men" for in the life coming into this one, he created the one that would come to be the Messiah, who is identified as such.