Posts by jonathan dough

19

Our Bible Study with the Jehovahs Witnesses (Part 2)

by garyneal in

well, my wife and i returned to the jw elders house for another bible study continuing the series in marriage.

that study went pretty well, poking fun at each other concerning our marital issues and all.

nothing in that particular study would seem to be bad or anything for after all, one cannot argue against the virtues of being faithful to your spouse and the marriage arrangement (at least for christians that is).

jonathan dough

double post

19

Our Bible Study with the Jehovahs Witnesses (Part 2)

by garyneal in

well, my wife and i returned to the jw elders house for another bible study continuing the series in marriage.

that study went pretty well, poking fun at each other concerning our marital issues and all.

nothing in that particular study would seem to be bad or anything for after all, one cannot argue against the virtues of being faithful to your spouse and the marriage arrangement (at least for christians that is).

jonathan dough

*** w06 6/1 p. 24 par. 12 Jehovah Tells "From the Beginning the Finale" ***Indeed, the admonition in the Christian Greek Scriptures was written primarily to guide and strengthen anointed ones to maintain integrity and keep themselves worthy of their heavenly calling. (Philippians 2:12; 2 Thessalonians 1:5, 11; 2 Peter 1:10, 11)

Perfect. Thank you for that.

JD II

148

Christians explain? Jews never believed in a Trinity even today so how/when did it start?

by Witness 007 in

jews for thousands of years have believed in their "one god" so i always wondered if in jesus time this was the view, how and when did the trinity start?

did jesus start it off?

are you saying jews were trinitarian?

jonathan dough

JD,

Thanks for your point of view.

Much of that is also Catholic/Protestant views, not just my opinion. Basic stuff found down at the public library and in the halls of university libraries.

57

thanks to all my friends on here....

by angel eyes in

jw
friends

thanks for the kind pm's from my true friends, regarding the nasty things and lies said about me on "reform can it be?

thread... .

i really appreciate the kind words and genuine love my true friends on here have shown in there pm's to me :).

jonathan dough

thanks for the kind pm's from my true friends, regarding the nasty things and lies said about me on "reform can it be? thread...

I really appreciate the kind words and genuine love my true friends on here have shown in there pm's to me :)

Yes two on this forum have shown there true colours and many of you are repulsed by it..... thankyou thankyou thankyou.....

your the ones i came on this site for, the ones who dont judge, the ones who have been through pain like i have and the ones who have a heart. Your the ones i wanted as friends.......yay and im glad i have you.

But you never took the time to respond to the replies to your scriptural objections. You throw out some verses knee-jerk thinking you have proven something, then run away. You are being hypocritical in saying you want to learn and know the truth but then never take the time to think about these things. And that is why so many arrows are slung your way, among other reasons. I'm sure you are a sweet girl, but I can't help get the feeling you have been put up to this. You won't even lift a finger in response. Is it because you know you are wrong?

JD II

40

"My God and My Lord" Ps. 35:23 - Need OT version

by jonathan dough in

when thomas said "my lord and my god," he used the exact words that david used at psalm 35:23 with reference to god, writing, "awake, be vigilant in my defense, in my cause, my god and my lord," (rsv, nab, kjv and green's literal translation).

"lord" here is translated from the hebrew adonai used exclusively of god.

thomas would never have used these same words when addressing the risen christ if he were just a man.

jonathan dough

Narkissos:

I think we are, for the most part, on the same page. The issue I addressed was narrower than your response, but I completely agree in your assessment of the Society's analytical methodology. In legal circles it is called "arguing in the alternative." 1) Thomas meant Jesus was "a god" or God-like or had divine qualities. 2) In the alternative (i.e. in case that argument doesn't work) Thomas was actually directing his speech to God, whether through Jesus, or as though God were beside him. It is a mere tactic, as you pointed out, a very common legalistic move and in response each such alternative argument should be broken down without leaving any alternative possibilities (which wasn't my initial purpose). Not locking the argument down is done all the time. They even go so far as to offer completely contradictory arguments, each used depending on who they are arguing against.

For example, in response to the claim that they are false prophets, they point to literature claiming they are not prophets, and bury it deep thereby making it difficult to retrieve. If you argue they can't be God's organization because they are not prophets, they point to different literature that says they are. It's a pseudo-intellectual shell game.

I was originally addressing the second point as it related to Ps. 35:23, in the context of the overriding issue, which is this notion that Jesus was nothing more or less than a man as they teach.

If the Society also teaches (3) "Jesus, my Lord and my God" implies that the Father (= Jehovah in WT doctrine) is addressed through Jesus (not besides Jesus as in option # 1)," well, applying a little common sense, they are wrong about that as well based on the simple fact that Thomas was directing his answer to Jesus, he answered Him, not God. There are other reasons as well. Their interpretation would imply blasphemy to Thomas. More here:
http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#35

The JWs get a lot of traction using the "through Jesus" arguments, far beyond the scope of this thread, but that also has major weaknesses.

N.B.: Jesus is not the Father but the Father is in Jesus, hence reached, known and seen through Jesus.

I'm not sure if this is meant to correct something I wrote earlier, but just to clarify as I have countless times to others, Jesus the creature, the created humanity, is not the Father - the Almighty (Catholic Encyclopedia, 932), which is a major distortion perpetuated by the Society. As such, I think what is getting lost here is the nature of the hypostatic union and how that relates to what is being spoken of.

Furthermore, in speaking of the "Father,:" that is usually meant to mean God, (“Father is not a title for the first person of the Trinity but a synonym for God” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 54)) and as God is triune in nature, God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity, who is fully God, can be addressed as Father (meaning God but not the first Person of the Trinity). And that, I believe, is the "My God" which Thomas referred to, the God of the God-man equation of the hypostatic union. And this in turn comports well with Isaiah 9:6 where the prophet wrote "For there has been a child born to us ..... and his name will be called ... Eternal Father." It is also the Father Jesus spoke of at John 14:8-10: "Phillip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Phillip? He who has seen me has seen the Father;..." The idea that Jesus thought of himself as just a man is ludicrous.

Let's save the discussion of the indwelling for a later time.

I'm nitpicking only because you come across as very assertive: it is fairly meaningless to say that "the Catholics regard verse 28 (not John 1:1) as "a literary inclusion with the first verse of the gospel: “and the Word was God” (NAB notes John 20, 28)". Catholic official dogma does not "lock" exegesis as your wording implies. Catholic scholars are largely free to discuss and disagree about the original meanings of particular texts, a fortiori broader literary consideration such as the inclusio structure (with which I agree in that particular case), even in books which are granted the official imprimatur, and the church is not officially committed to their views

.

Nitpick away, but I need to clarify a few things. I'm not implying anything by my wording as you contend, and I can't be accused of over-aggressiveness on this because this is a direct quote from the New American Bible, "... a new Catholic version of the Bible in English," (NAB Introduction). Accordingly, one could reasonably conclude that this is, coming directly from the Vatican, official dogma. Nowhere did I state, nor can it be implied, that I argued that Catholic scholars are not free to discuss or disagree about the original meanings of particular texts. (They are not JWs, after all). You might be reading a little too much in what I wrote. But that's all right, because we agree on most issues except for some nibbling around the edges.

Now, going back to my original post, all I wanted to verify was Ps. 35:23 which reads "... my God and my Lord" and which the JWs have evidently changed to "...my God, even Jehovah." And for the above reasons that we both have submitted, I think they are dead wrong. Ps. 35:23 lends credence to the argument that Thomas believed in his heart that the risen Christ was God, not just god-like, or "divine" like some Old Testament "gods." And he most certainly was not answering God (apart from or through Jesus according to JW lore) or directing his answer to a separate Jehovah God.

JD II

148

Christians explain? Jews never believed in a Trinity even today so how/when did it start?

by Witness 007 in

jews for thousands of years have believed in their "one god" so i always wondered if in jesus time this was the view, how and when did the trinity start?

did jesus start it off?

are you saying jews were trinitarian?

jonathan dough

“If the pivotal assertion of the New Testament, “The Word was made flesh” (Jn 1.14), means anything, it signifies that two, the divine and the human, became somehow uniquely one in Jesus of Nazareth; that in Him was achieved a union, elsewhere unparalleled of God with man” (ibid., 918).

The Church believes that Jesus Christ is true God, Son of God made man, the Second person of the Trinity, who took unto Himself a human nature and so exists not only in the divine but also in a human nature: one divine Person in two natures. The man who in His earthly life was known as Jesus of Nazareth was not a human person made one, as Nestorius said, in a unique way of moral unity, with the Person of the Son of God. He was God, Son of the Father, made man for men’s salvation. (ibid., 932)

“His human nature, perfect and complete, was not a human person distinct from the Divine person of the Word … it was the human nature of a Divine Person. This point of our faith enwraps the humanity of Christ in full mystery. … His human life included true human knowledge and a human will distinct from the divine will” (ibid., 936).

Our faith in Christ, the God-man, supposes that his humanity is not a human person (the mystery). For if it were, and if there were a duality of persons in Christ, then the Divine Person would not really be man but only united with a man; Christ would not be what our faith says he is.” (ibid., 937)

“Christ is one Person, that of the Logos, in two complete and integral natures” (Council of Chalcedon in 451) (ibid., 921), but “U]nion of the human nature with the divine self in no way diminishes the human nature” (Constantinople III in 681) (ibid.,). “[T]he human nature of Christ had its foundation in the divine self, the Second person of the Blessed Trinity,” (794 AD, A synod at Frankfurt) (ibid.).

http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#6

148

Christians explain? Jews never believed in a Trinity even today so how/when did it start?

by Witness 007 in

jews for thousands of years have believed in their "one god" so i always wondered if in jesus time this was the view, how and when did the trinity start?

did jesus start it off?

are you saying jews were trinitarian?

jonathan dough

If I recall correctly, the belief in the Trinity is NOT a basis for salvation for a christian, any christian, correct?

Actually, it is.

"If you do not believe that I AM you will die in your sins." (John 8:24, 25).

http://www.144000.110mb.com/trinity/index-7.html#36

To believe that Jesus was, and is, the I AM is to believe in the Trinity doctrine, his (God the son's) triune nature (not the created humanity, the creature of Jesus, who was/is not the Almighty. None of the three Persons can be separated. The Lord is the spirit. Christ is the Spirit. The trinity is not three Gods.

To confess that Jesus is Lord, a prerequisite to salvation, among other things, is to confess his divinity, that he is God.

43

Baptised and on this or other apostate sites - DF'ing Offense???

by cognac in

jw
friends

just wondering if you can be in a jc for being on apostate sites.

i'm not talking about if you clicked on something by mistake.

does it say it in the elders book?.

jonathan dough

JWs are apostates against the truth.

http://www.144000.110mb.com/

19

Our Bible Study with the Jehovahs Witnesses (Part 2)

by garyneal in

well, my wife and i returned to the jw elders house for another bible study continuing the series in marriage.

that study went pretty well, poking fun at each other concerning our marital issues and all.

nothing in that particular study would seem to be bad or anything for after all, one cannot argue against the virtues of being faithful to your spouse and the marriage arrangement (at least for christians that is).

jonathan dough

I had an elder flat out tell me right before I got baptized that the NT wasn't written for me, but was written to the 144,000. Anyone know of a printed version of this doctrine?

I would also like to see that because it is one of their most often cited doctrines when you pin them down.

148

Christians explain? Jews never believed in a Trinity even today so how/when did it start?

by Witness 007 in

jews for thousands of years have believed in their "one god" so i always wondered if in jesus time this was the view, how and when did the trinity start?

did jesus start it off?

are you saying jews were trinitarian?

jonathan dough

Jesus was both Man and God. Google hypostatic union.

BTS

I think I understand the hypostatic union. I didn't understand the point he was trying to make but now I do.

Here is my research on the God-man Jesus.

5) The Hypostatic Union: Jesus is fully God and fully man. This God-man is both divine and human, a divine Person who assumed a human nature.

6) Further articulation of the Hypostatic Union - the nature of the God-man Jesus.

JD II