Saved_JW

Joined

• started 14 topics
• posted 89 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Saved_JW

• 
  76

  The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words

  by maccauk in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a man can be a father .

  a man can be a son.

  a man can be a husband.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Dude, every time you clarify your statement, you carry more unfounded assertions that I have to address, which makes it increasingly difficult to respond.

  "Paul had no concept of the trinity"

  what do you mean by that exactly? If you mean the specific word Trinity, I would agree..but that does not assume the CONCEPT underlying the word was not understood by Christians. In fact, I use Paul more then anybody else to help support the concept of the trinity

  Colossians 1:15
  "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."
  
  "But I'm not talking about trained Pharisees like Paul I mean the thousands of the earliest illiterate Hebrew Christians."
  
  Oh ok...because earlier you said:
  
  "The earliest christians did not speak Greek let alone understand esoteric Greek theological terms."
  
  Sounded like a broad brush statement, but the qualifier must be everybody except "Educated Pharisees"
  
  What needs to be understood here is that Pauls main audience were GENTILES for which he wrote his letters in the greek language. Are we to assume that none of the GREEK church's he was writing to actually spoke greek or understood the theological concepts he was writing about?
  
  "I'm talking about before the NT was written. The first generation of illiterate Hebrew christians did not speak Greek."
  
  300 years before Jesus even arrived on the scene, you have the Selucid [Greek] Empire saturating its religion, language and culture in Palestine. Not only this but the entire ancient world. This was the entire basis of translating the Hebrew Bible into Greek [Septuagint or LXX] By the time jesus arrives on the scene, virtually all of Palestine is either utilizing greek as a primary language, or a fluent second language. It was necessary to learn to conduct business.
  
  Why else would Jesus be quoting from the Greek Septuagint in a synagogue at Mark 7:6-7
  
  All in all, the NT quotes and references the Septuagint in 340 instances, compared to 33 quotes from the Masoretic text.
  
  The challenge you gave me is entirely based on your assumption that early Christians did not know greek so therefore could not have possibly understood the Trinity. I find that view wanting.
  
  Based on that assumption, you setup a challenge robbing me of an explanation which makes use of words like "Essence" - Which is a biblical word by the way [words that actually have biblical theological concepts behind them]
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  76

  The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words

  by maccauk in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a man can be a father .

  a man can be a son.

  a man can be a husband.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  "the earliest Christians did not speak greek let along understand esoteric Greek theological terms."
  

  Acts 17:22 // Paul speaks at the aeropagus quoting from Greek philosophers to make a case for Christianity

  -Greek/Aramaic were two very common languages in ancient Palestine, the basis for which the Septuagint was written [and utilized by Jesus when quoting the OT] not to mention the entire NT was written in Greek.

  sorry, I don't buy that argument.

  "Therefore by your own admission they did not understand the trinity."

  what exactly did I admit to? The entire basis of your belief that the earliest Christians did not believe in the trinity is the ASSUMPTION they didn't understand greek?
  
  "Therefore according to you the earliest Christians were not Christians"
  
  Nope, the earliest Christians had a very high view of Jesus, this is not to say there were not different streams of belief about the ontology of Jesus [see Gnosticism] however, 1st John seem to combat and refute the spread of Gnostic philosophy very early on. This was also the basis for forming the Nicene creed in 325 to defend traditional views of Christs nature. Which they did by using the more specific Greek language to define terms.
  
  
  
• 
  76

  The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words

  by maccauk in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a man can be a father .

  a man can be a son.

  a man can be a husband.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  "utter gibberish"

  Nice to know you have not changed a bit Cofty..[since the last time I was here years ago]

  "I challenge you to explain and illustrate the trinity without..

  1-contradicting yourself

  2-committing heresy

  3-resorting to esoteric Greek terms like essence and substance"
  
  Very nice...well played... So in order for me to explain a theological concept, I have to do so based on YOUR naturalistic/humanistic terms, a framework for which is impossible to do without the use of specific theological concepts encapsulated in the Greek language.
  
  Sounds like your setting me up to fail in that question buddy. No thanks I wont take the bait.
  
• 
  76

  The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words

  by maccauk in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  a man can be a father .

  a man can be a son.

  a man can be a husband.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  "A man can be a husband, a man can be a son, a man can be a father"

  This illustration provided is NOT Trinitarian theology, it's modalism which is the stereotype used by the Watchtower in order to criticize it. The father is NOT the Son, and the Son is NOT the father, neither is the HS the Father or the Son. Instead, all 3 have the divine attributes which consist of being God. Three in Person, one in essence/nature.
  
  
  
• 
  48

  God of the Old Testament

  by unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  to those on these forums who are christian and or to those who believe in the god of the old testament; how does one overcome many of the questionable actions god took or allowed to happen in the old testament?.

  many if not most of us have heard of criticisms of the god of the old testament.

  you can find these criticisms on many websites.. how do you explain to an honest hearted person why god acted the way they did?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  I don't know if the previous comments are directed at me specifically, but I am very well read on Jewish history and the current counter-missionary efforts of the Jewish community, specifically Rabbi Tovia Singer. So I am not ignorant of their position of God.

  I am also not ignorant of the Christian evangelical mindset either. I actually agree that ideas about God can be imposed on the OT scripture. When Christians impose an Omni-benevolent teddy bear god into scripture, they actually do it a disservice and are not honest with the text. When Christians present God in this way, its easy for atheists to read scripture and disagree with that cultural mindset and dismiss it.

  Notice that wasn't the presentation I gave. God is Love, but this is not to say he is Omni-benevolent or is "fair"

  He is Good. That which emanates from his word is by definition Good/Just
  
• 
  48

  God of the Old Testament

  by unsure in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  to those on these forums who are christian and or to those who believe in the god of the old testament; how does one overcome many of the questionable actions god took or allowed to happen in the old testament?.

  many if not most of us have heard of criticisms of the god of the old testament.

  you can find these criticisms on many websites.. how do you explain to an honest hearted person why god acted the way they did?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Ok I guess Ill step up and honestly answer the question

  "To those on these forums who are Christian AND OR to those who believe in the God of the Old Testament; how does one overcome many of the questionable actions God took or allowed to happen in the Old Testament?"
  

  At its core, this is a moral objection to the actions of God.

  I understand the heart of your question, but before I answer, It might help to understand the doctrine of God.

  1- God is the only eternal uncreated being in the universe

  2- Ergo, God is the only one who has a divine right to dictate law [be that moral or otherwise]

  3- Therefore, our understanding of God is that he has absolute right to determine what OUGHT to be in the realms of ethics. What God says/does is good

  What are the implications of this? It means that God does not conform to an external standard of righteousness [good] God is the very definition of Good. The only way we [as people] can measure right and wrong is by an absolute measuring rod, which is God.

  Your question assumes that there is a standard of right and wrong found outside of God, and using that standard [whatever it is] you have judged God as not conforming to that standard, which is why you ask the question: how does one overcome many of the questionable actions God took or allowed to happen in the Old Testament?"

  I don't have to overcome anything. My mind is finite and limited in perspective, I do not know the complete circumstances surrounding any given judgment by God, but does it really matter anyways?

  What right do I have to breathe if God is the one who created me in the first place? What right do we have to anything since everything we have and are is owed to God in the first place? Instead we see that God is merciful by giving us life...he is also perfectly Just in the execution of his judgments [of which he is the standard]

  As for the question of Jesus being different then the God of the OT, this can easily be reconciled: Jesus came to bear witness of the Truth [Jn 18:37] To set the captives free [Luke 4:18] He came as a ministry of reconciliation [2 Cor 5:11] Jesus was prophesied to come on a donkey [in peace]...However this does not mean Jesus will not execute Justice. I appeal to the Book of Revelation for this one.
  
  Jesus second coming is a judgment against the wicked [Matt 13:41;2 Peter 2:9; Rev 19:11-16]

  This is what it all boils down to. If there is a moral objection against God, what moral LAW are you appealing to in order to make that judgement?
  
• 
  133

  Why Are You Here?

  by Believer in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  i'm wondering why believers remain members of this forum which is clearly hostile to believers.

  as one member said, nonbelievers pounce on any semblance of belief like piranhas on prey.

  as former jws we should have had our fill of judgmental know-it-alls, but here we are.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Hello Believer,

  I consider myself a Christian Theist. I was a seminary student and a Pastor, former Jehovah's Witness as well.

  You will find that the majority of people on this thread are Atheists or Agnostics, you will find that the majority of people who leave the watchtower go through various stages of emotional turmoil. This manifests itself in various different ways. But for the most part, Anger and resentment seem to be the most common. I find Atheism to be a perfect conduit for many leaving the Religion. I have various reasons why I believe this, but that's for a different thread.
• 
  12

  A philosophical question

  by Coded Logic in

  1. social
  2. entertainment

  on the internet i keep bumping into people who are extremely insistent that our universe could be a simulation.

  while i think it may, in the future, be possible to simulate a high fidelity universe - i don’t think we should confuse the ability to model a universe with the ability to actually build a universe.. .

  for example, we can model weather patterns inside a computer.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  The Philosophical question really boils down to a problem being debated since Ancient Greece...is reality Mind or Matter?

  In other words, what is the nature of reality? This led to philosophers trying to determine what makes us human in the first place, how can we even prove we exist. This is the kind of stuff that will make your brain smoke if you go too far down the rabbit hole. They may seem like pointless discussions, but they are very important. Something we don't really struggle with today. We live in a Empirical world, where Sight, sound, taste, touch and smell determine reality, but nobody really questions that assumption.
  
• 
  147

  Challenge to Creationists

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  in response to the 37 threads in my evolution is a fact series - see bottom of op for links - perry posted a link to an article "44 reasons why evolution isn't true".. i offered him a challenge on the thread and by pm.

  predictably he is totally ignoring it, so i am offering the challenge to any evolution-denier who thinks they have evidence to support their position.. please present one specific piece of evidence for creationism.. my task will be to refute it with evidence within 24 hours.. then i will present one piece of evidence for evolution and your challenge will be the same.. all posts must be as succinct as reasonably possible.

  entirely in your own words, without copy-paste, videos or links.. please post your interest to take part and we will set it up before the first actual post in the exchange.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  A disclaimer before I present my evidence for Creation

  I have found that Atheists are very selective about what they consider to be evidence that would support any other worldview then the ones they presuppose. Evidence does not speak for itself, we all have bias and we all interpret evidence through the filters of our assumptions. So that what is "Reasonable" to one individual, may be unreasonable to another.

  I have many presuppositional approaches that I can demonstrate showing the rationality of an intelligence behind creation. I can also demonstrate how any worldview outside of a special creation point of view is not consistent with Science or Ethics. But I will make this post very simple and stay as close as I can to Empirical evidence as requested.
  
  EVIDENCE for INTELLIGENCE/CREATION:

  1- Information begets Information: In order for us to make use of Science as a tool, we must assume that nature can be predictable. The examined world around us works in a generally mechanical, intelligent and predictable way. This is what scientists ASSUME when they approach the scientific modem of observation and tests. In fact, this assumption of general predictability of nature is EXACTLY what you would expect in a creation model. Why? Because if we observe intelligence in nature, we can assume an intelligent designer. [Information begetting information] At the very least, this assumption is consistent with observable evidence.
  
  Science cannot assume arbitrary starting points for nature [non-intelligence] since this would automatically assume that nothing in nature can truly be predicted, since there would be ultimately no objective laws to govern nature.

  What we CAN know is that there is absolutely no existing scientific model that will demonstrate that we can get INFORMATION from NON-INFORMAITON. If we did, Atheists would be holding this up as the holy grail of its dogma. But there isn't. The only model science can use [ironically enough] is a model that assumes intelligence and universal laws.
  
  When DNA is examined, this can be examined in terms of intelligence, since information is passed from one generation to another. Predictable models of information are taken away from the DNA to generate characteristics from one generation to another. Dog breeders do this all the time.

  DNA is a code of information passed down from parent to child. Its predictable and generally stable. This is exactly what we would expect to observe if we assume INTELLIGENCE behind creation. Again, the evidence of nature always shows us that Information begets information, consistent with the assumptions of creationism.
  
  This means the burden of proof/evidence falls on the one who claims there is no intelligence behind creation. Show me a model that shows this is true?
• 
  17

  Is reasoning with a JW the answer?

  by Saved_JW in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  when i first left the watchtower society, i can remember being very eager to learn new information, especially information which pertained to discrediting the watchtower organization.

  i called it "the cage stage" .

  this excitement and newfound change in worldview completely rocked my world.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  When I first left the Watchtower Society, I can remember being very eager to learn new information, especially information which pertained to discrediting the Watchtower Organization. I called it "The Cage Stage"

  This excitement and newfound change in worldview completely rocked my world. As if though I had found a treasure hidden right under my nose. This newfound excitement transpired into the way I talked with Jehovah's Witnesses. I had assumed that just because I had information that was based in fact, they would in fact respond with the same level of excitement as me. If the truth stands on its own merit, there is nothing that can go against it!

  Or...So I thought anyways.
  
  On the surface the Watchtower Organization creates a culture that is very black and white. Being "In the truth" is not a matter of feeling or conjecture, its simply a matter of "fact" [or so says the Watchtower] The same goes with any doctrine that comes down the pipeline of information disseminated from the Watchtower. Very rarely do you see doctrines that are in the grey. It either is, or isn't.

  For those of us who have left the Watchtower, this type of mentality can leave us to assume that the way we talk to Jehvoah's Witnesses should mirror that of the Watchtower. Because after all, this is the language that we know and are familiar with.

  I have learned a lot in the past 8 years, and the more I interact with JW's, I have come to realize that the core of the individual belief system is rooted in Fear. Which is ultimately an expression of emotion. I like to call it Fear feigning as facts

  Fear is a powerful manipulative tool the Watchtower uses to ultimately gain control over the actions of its adherents. The one major weak point of using fear is that in many cases, it does not gain the heart of an individual.

  One time when I was a kid, I remember being punished by my father. I was so angry at the situation, but I was still ordered to split an entire cord of wood and stack it by days end. At the end of the day, I was still angry at my father, and I was not repentant for the crime I had been punished for. But all that mattered was I do my task as Ordered and all was forgiven.
  
  I think the same thing goes with the Watchtower. You gain advancement in the organization based on outward conformity, metrics, appearance, etc... Very little weight is based on an individuals love for God [Jehovah] his prayer life, or his continual relationship with God.

  As I said, fear is a great tool to use, if the only thing an organization is concerned about is surface level results and outward conformity.

  New Goal in how to talk to Witnesses

  Since coming to a deep understanding of this emotional predisposition that JW's hold to, I have changed the way I approach witnesses, both friends and family. I go into a conversation with the understanding that they don't respect me. [I know they love me] but the issue is they Trust and Respect the Watchtower first. Its not my goal to win an argument, neither is it my goal to come up with the best argument. Its my goal to win their trust, which again is rooted in Emotion.

  I don't think of this as an emotional tactic. In fact, this is all rooted in simply being myself. In fact, I think when most people try to win over a JW's they are in fact "Playing games" with them. If you approach a conversation not concerned about the individual you are speaking with, or simply trying to win an argument, this is rooted in your own Ego.

  In conclusion, a JW will never be logically convinced against an argument they have emotionally succumbed to. The goals of our conversations should be rooted in our love and concern for the person we are speaking with. Because at the end of the day, they believe that the Watchtower cares about them, therefore this is ultimately the only authority they can trust.
  
  So is reasoning with a JW the answer? Of course it is. But remember the foundation of their belief is not rooted in sound reasoning to begin with. I try to tackle to core of the issue first. The misplaced dedication and loyalty to the Watchtower itself, rooted in fear. When speaking with JW's, they know I am a person they can trust. and I don't live up to the stereotypes that the Watchtower places on "apostates"

  Even if the decide to stay in the Watchtower, they will always know that there is somebody who cares about them on the outside, a Safety Net if you will... the next time they decide to reevaluate their circumstances.