Posts by jst2laws

38

John 10:15

by LittleToe in

joh 10:15 as the father knoweth me, even so know i the father: and i lay down my life for the sheep.

.

something suddenly struck me, while reading the aforementioned verse.. if the father knows everything (ginosko - to know "absolutely") and hence knows jesus intimately; how is it possible for jesus to know the father in the same way if he's merely an angel or "perfect" human?

jst2laws

Hello Midget

I often link "knowing" with a high degree of "certainty". Could that be an important purpose and message of these mystical experiences? Not so much knowing absolutely everything there is to know about the nature of God, the Son and everything, as we now are anyways, but to possess that high degree of certainty of their actually being?

Good point. I'm not sure we have to be "certain" about anything but it would be nice to be "certain" of God's "actual being". On the otherhand, I'm not "certain' of my own 'actual being'. Even in Quantum physics (the science that gives us modern chemistry, micro-biology, electronics) every function of quantum mechanics must incorporate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Since Newtonian Physics (the physics we were taught in school) has had to yield to "relativity" and "uncertainty" I'm personally not 'certain' of anything. However, the mystics seem to have a consistent experience and are also very confident in what they 'know' from their experience. In fact the early Christian Mystics claimed to "know" God strictly by experience, not factual knowledge. Naturally, these strange Christians needed eradication since their "knowledge" couldn't be codified, dogmatized or legitimized. So, burn them, BURN THEM on the stake. LittleToe, Did you cover the angle Didier implied that:

GJohn the absolute-mystical knowledge (gnôsis, from ginôskô) of the Father which the Son enjoys as Revealer is ultimately shared by all who know the Son

Could Jesus have been referring to "absolute-mystical knowledge (gnôsis, from ginôskô)" as far as true Christians EXPERIENCING GOD as mystics have known Him? Justin

38

John 10:15

by LittleToe in

joh 10:15 as the father knoweth me, even so know i the father: and i lay down my life for the sheep.

.

something suddenly struck me, while reading the aforementioned verse.. if the father knows everything (ginosko - to know "absolutely") and hence knows jesus intimately; how is it possible for jesus to know the father in the same way if he's merely an angel or "perfect" human?

jst2laws

AuldSoul,

Oddly, the Kingdom Interlinear Translation (basically Wescott and Hort's text) translates the Greek in John 10:30 as follows: I and the Father one (thing) we are.

So now they have "thing-ified" God too? I'll go along with Narkissos' explanation of "thing" as long as it mean 'not a person'. Maybe it's a hint that the early Christians writer did not think of God as a literal person (male/female) in the sky. If mdb isn't locked into a strict trinity concept perhaps he will agree. LT, I'll get back to you soon. Justin

38

John 10:15

by LittleToe in

joh 10:15 as the father knoweth me, even so know i the father: and i lay down my life for the sheep.

.

something suddenly struck me, while reading the aforementioned verse.. if the father knows everything (ginosko - to know "absolutely") and hence knows jesus intimately; how is it possible for jesus to know the father in the same way if he's merely an angel or "perfect" human?

jst2laws

Well LittleToe, you got me to research again.

At first I got into other words translated "know" like "i'-do" (Strongs 1492, eido¯). But then it occured to me that the difference in I'-do and ginosko is not as important as the fact, as you point out, that Jesus claims to know the the Father the same way the father knows Jesus, regardless of what word he used to convey "know".

To complicate it the previous verse says:

14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
KJV John 10:14

Jesus is known (same word, ginosko) by the sheep the same as the Father is known by Jesus. So the question in my mind is what is the nature and significance of the inter-relationship being discribed?

I hope the language experts will comment on this but I'm content to for now to conclude that we can not offer too literal an interpretation of these scriptures without removing the spiritual intent of his comments. In the same discussion in vs 38 we have Jesus saying:

believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
KJV

If Jesus knows the Father the same as the Father knows him and the sheep know Jesus the same as Jesus knows them, and the Father is "in" Jesus just as Jesus is in the father, I wonder if those in tune with the spirit likewise have the father "in" them and themselves likewise are "in" the Father? How would we explaim that literally? Or should we just accept that the message of Jesus has a deeper meaning than most "know" (ginosko)?

Jst2laws

19

Who Skypes here?

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

.

are there any skypers here?.

auldsoul

jst2laws

Yep, Jst2laws

20

What does it mean to Love your neighbor as your self?

by jst2laws in

as one can tell by my screen name i am focused on love as a key ingredient of existence.

i was a jw elder when i first came here and worn out from wt rules and had become acutely focused on the 'two laws'.

matthew 22:39 is one of a few places that the 'two laws' are recorded where we are told to love god with our whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.

jst2laws

Narkissos,

That is a very interesting link. http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas25.html#

I have read the gospel of Thomas as well as Elaine Pagels' Beyond belief on the controversy of Thomas' gospel vs John's. An eye opener for 'true believers'.

Thanks for the link.

Jst2laws

20

What does it mean to Love your neighbor as your self?

by jst2laws in

as one can tell by my screen name i am focused on love as a key ingredient of existence.

i was a jw elder when i first came here and worn out from wt rules and had become acutely focused on the 'two laws'.

matthew 22:39 is one of a few places that the 'two laws' are recorded where we are told to love god with our whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.

jst2laws

LittleToe,

Us mystics and lovers aren't restrained by facts. If an interpretation suites our concepts we can find a way to make it seem right.

Jez,

That wasn't bad. Actually I laughed out loud.

LadyLee,

Steve It seems to me that it was a good thing you left the JWs. I have never heard a JW refer to this scripture in such a healing manner

Thanks for that. I was always in trouble for something. The CO's started ganging up on me near the end.

Jst2laws

20

What does it mean to Love your neighbor as your self?

by jst2laws in

as one can tell by my screen name i am focused on love as a key ingredient of existence.

i was a jw elder when i first came here and worn out from wt rules and had become acutely focused on the 'two laws'.

matthew 22:39 is one of a few places that the 'two laws' are recorded where we are told to love god with our whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.

jst2laws

Thanks Leo and Narkissos, As I anticipated:

If Narcissos and Leolaia will help with this, it would be nice. We will probably find the implication is that he was talking about loving others the same way we love ourselves.

I was afraid the technical answer would be as you both convey. I hated to find in my own research that the quote went back to Lev 18 which would demand a conventional meaning rather than a more mystical implication. I was hoping there might be some less obvious article, inflexion, or something rare in the text that would support a liberal interpretation. Nevertheless, I like James Thomas' thought which I too share, mostly based on my own knowledge of quantum physics and some relatively recent experiments. These seem to agree with James that the "walls of individual-separate-self are illusory, then there is no other to hate, Love". Thanks for your responses. Jgnat Cookies was a nice thought. Jez I even miss YouKnow dropping in with strange comments on serious threads. I wouldn't have been offended. Jst2laws

20

What does it mean to Love your neighbor as your self?

by jst2laws in

as one can tell by my screen name i am focused on love as a key ingredient of existence.

i was a jw elder when i first came here and worn out from wt rules and had become acutely focused on the 'two laws'.

matthew 22:39 is one of a few places that the 'two laws' are recorded where we are told to love god with our whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself.

jst2laws

As one can tell by my screen name I am focused on love as a key ingredient of existence. I was a JW elder when I first came here and worn out from WT rules and had become acutely focused on the 'two laws'. Matthew 22:39 is one of a few places that the 'two laws' are recorded where we are told to love God with our whole heart, soul and mind and to love your neighbor as yourself. I have recently wondered if their is a different insinuation in the original language that I have overlooked. To "love your neighbor as yourself" seems to say care for them as you would yourself, to unselfishly look out for others as you look out for yourself. I used to emphasize as an elder while helping folks with low self esteem that they must LOVE THEM SELF first to be able to love their neighbor properly. This goes along with the psychological principle that if we hate something about ourself we project that ugly quality onto others and hate them for being like us. However, in reading Wayne Dyers book The Power of Intention I had a different perception of "love your neighbor AS YOURSELF". What if the original thought was not so much 'love them like you love yourself' but 'love them as if you and they are one and the same', connected as part of a whole? Is it possible? This would go along with the philosophical interpretation of findings of quantum physics, that we are all connected, part of a single whole. A little on the original words

The original word "hos" translated "as" is also translated on other occasions to be "about, after, as , as, even as (like), for, like (as, unto), since, so (that) so. Not so helpful. However, "thyself" is the word " NT:4572 seautou (seh-ow-too'); genitive case from NT:4571 and NT:846; also dative case of the same, seautoi (seh-ow-to'); and accusative case seauton (seh-ow-ton'); likewise contracted sautou (sow-too'); sautoi (sow-to'); and sauton (sow-ton'); respectively; of (with, to) thyself:
KJV - thee, thine ownself, (thou) thy (-self).

The last part quoted above says "thee, thine ownself". Is there any chance that the words used originally conveyed the thought that we should love our neighbor because we and our neighbor are inseparable, part of the same, manifestations of the whole? Should we love our neighbor because they ARE "thee, thine ownself" rather than BECAUSE we love ourselves.

If Narcissos and Leolaia will help with this, it would be nice. We will probably find the implication is that he was talking about loving others the same way we love ourselves. But is seems that since many of us have difficulty loving ourselves, It would be easier to obey the LOVE principle if we realized we were all part of a whole, that loving others was loving ourselves and visa versa.

What do you think. Jst2laws

30

I have to take a little break...

by AuldSoul in

jw
friends

.

i don't think i can successfully put a clamp on my mouth if i don't take a break from this place.

i want my wife to wake up, but i think i can't do what that would take if i keep myself up-to-date on all the worst going on currently in dub-land.. i love you all and i will be back, i just have to take a breather.. auldsoul

jst2laws

Oh boy, what has happened?

Auldsoul, we both know you have the ability to say just the right thing, as well as the ability to wear your listener down with irrefutable logic and fact.

Glad you are going take a break and give the lady some breathing room.

Jst

27

Blatantly deceitful use of secular sources

by AuldSoul in

i am looking good repository of instances where the watchtower or awake!

have quoted secular sources in such a way to make it appear the source supports their argument when it is blatantly obvious that the secular source disagreed with them.

if it doesn't exist, i am about to make one.

jst2laws

Hello AuldSoul,

Good idea, hope this project turns out to be a comprehensive collection.

Carl Olof Johnsson has some interesting examples in The Sign of the Last Days. (available at commentarypress.com)

One example is the Watchtower (May 15,1983) quote of Professor Keiiti Aki as speaking of 'the apparent surge in intensity and frequency of major earthquakes during the last one hundred years'. However, the Watchtower quote stops at that point failing to include the rest of Professor Aki's sentence which goes on to say: "in all probablility, due to improved recording of earthquakes".

Carl Johnsson wrote Mr Aki and asked for his response to the Watchtower's misleading use of his statement. He responded by saying "they quoted the part they wanted, eliminating my main message".

This account can be found on page 67 of Carl's above sited book.

Jst2