To any caught in its path, I hope you stay safe. You and your neighbors are in my thoughts.
Jonathan Drake
JoinedPosts by Jonathan Drake
-
20
East Coast Blizzard 2015
by breakfast of champions inwhere we're at, we won't get it as bad as nyc, long island or new england.
even so, my university is closed until wednesday morning, and we're expecting well over a foot of snow.. anyone else out there "hunkering down"?.
-
-
-
13
The god of the bible doesn't care and here's some proof.
by Crazyguy inaround 600 ad a man named muhammed created a book called the quran.
a few hundred years later the followers of this new religion called islam went on a holy crusade out of arabia to spread their religion.
in one key battle they were met by the ruling government army and were out numbered at least by 3 to 1. they could of easily lost and if god would of made sure of this most likely thier religion would of stayed an insagnificant religion of just arabia.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Except the qoran does call Christ a messiah and states he was a death equal to Adam just like the bible does. It also states emphatically that the bible should be taken as inspire word and everything the qoran says is meant to be taken with the bible as a confirmation of it.
So, I would submit that the issue isn't the qoran, but rather how it's been twisted and interpreted- same as the bible.
consider for example how the western world responded to the Ottoman Empire. When the Muslims were on their crusade, they didn't harm the citizens of the countries they took over unless those people attacked - at which point they defended themselves. the only people they killed are those who attacked them like soldiers. If they could take them captive they did, at which point they accepted Islam or died.
Now compare that to the crusades headed up by the Catholic Church. They not only beat the Ottoman Empire back the the Middle East, but they invaded their towns, especially Jerusalem, and killed every man woman and child they came across. They had no mercy at all. The blood running in the courtyard of the temple area is recorded to have been ankle deep when the crusaders were finally done, with body parts piled up on street corners.
The Ottoman Empire showed far more mercy, and would never have killed innocents arbitrarily like the church army did (or, ironically, as Isis or alqueda do today).
personally, I think the crusaders were far more barbaric and terrible than the ottoman army was.
Source, this book: http://www.booksamillion.com/p/Templars/Piers-Paul-Read/9780312555382?id=6223161565069
which i I no longer have because someone borrowed and never returned.
-
32
"GB=Faithful slave" TRUE reason for change revealed
by Viva la Vida injohn ekrann, a helper to the gb, revealed the true reason for the change was protecting jws from apostates and other "anointed" christians.. see: http://tv.jw.org/#video/vodprogramsevents/pub-jwbmw_e_201501_2_video (around 4:55ms).
.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
He is so wrong. And it's so easy to prove it scripturally. notice he provides no real study or proof, he just says "it makes sense". I'd love to sit down with him and a bible and educate him on what a "Steward" was in Jewish culture and how they were appointed. (Isaiah 22:20-22; compare Matt 16:19)
-
10
PESHER: an Historic scheme of INTERPRETING SCRIPTURE. . . Watchtower style!
by TerryWalstrom ingeorge bernard shaw said: no man ever believes that the bible means what it says.
he is always convinced that it says what he means.. shaw must have had pesher in mind!
but, what is pesher?.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
This is very interesting.
This Pesher is precisely what ended my meeting attendance. They apply this to the Faithful Slave in Matthew when it can be demonstrated that this has no future fulfillment and that he was talking to someone in particular - Peter. There is no reason to think this has some end times fulfillment.
ive also noticed how Old Testament scriotures are ascribed to Christ in ways that when I read it doesn't really make sense at times. Such as the Old Testament references used by Peter when they replaced judas. The only thing standing in my way of denouncing the bible as debunked because of the "Pesher" shown in it is because the Old Testament itself calls the future coming messiah an anti type of David's kingship. So all those psalms weren't being randomly applied to Christ, they were already understood to be a type antitype because the OT told them it was.
any Pesher developed after the death of the apostles was strictly denounced and prohibited by them before they died, and should thus be igored as in any way doctrinal truth. This applies to all religions founded on Christianity, including Jehovah's witnesses.
This is why I, personally, read the New Testament literally, and don't look for any meaning. I take it at face value.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Your reference does not say they were distinct, it says they were the same and that it was Abrahams God. This is what I said, and that is what history seems to suggest. It is this God el, who later became yahweh. Still the same God, different name.
As far as how the Greek expression is different, just google it. I've already put my books away from earlier and I really dont want to go get them back out.
Actually I did it for you, this quote is confirmed by literally everything. Spend as much time as you want with Google, by as many books as you want - if they are credible sites and sources they will agree:
The New Testament features the indefinite "a son of man" in Hebrews 2:6 (citing psalm 8:4), and "one like a son of man" in Revelation 1:13 and 14:14 (referencing Daniel 7:13's "one like a son of man").[7] The four gospels introduce a totally new definite form, the awkward and ambiguous "ὁ υἱὸς τοὺ ἀνθρώπου", literally "the man's son."[1] In all four it is used only by Jesus (except once in the gospel of John, when the crowd asks what Jesus means by it), and functions as an emphatic equivalent of the first-person pronoun, I/me/my.[8] Modern scholarship increasingly sees the phrase not as one genuinely used by Jesus but as a one put in his mouth by the early Church.[9][need quotation to verify]
-
8
Did God establish His Covenant with the Gentile Nations or the Jews?
by sowhatnow inim not sure where to post this but i think its telling.
not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.
the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Oh also thisnis one place it's importsnt to see a distinction between the mosaic law and the ten commamdments. They aren't the same thing.
christ abolished the mosaic law, which was the judicial decrees including needing to make atonement sacrifice. He died once for all men's atonement, hence he abolished the law requiring the sacrifices and all the observances.
However, the Ten Commandments were directly from God and not through Moses. They were never abolished. (I.e., it's still not right to steal another's wife or kill someone)
(This is meant for consideration along with the post by living Quietly)
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
There are reasons the Greek ohrase was unique to Christ.
Also your reference you quoted said the exact same thing I said. So I'm glad we agree now, but it was a very long journey getting here.
-
8
Did God establish His Covenant with the Gentile Nations or the Jews?
by sowhatnow inim not sure where to post this but i think its telling.
not long but read it closely i get a bit confused on the latter half.
the question is did god establish his covenant with the gentile nations or the jews.. [though i have read from a jewish web source, that the jews have nothing to do with israel and the greek scriptures or half the hebrew scriptures ].
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Look at Romans 9:1-7. Here Paul expresses regret over the Israelites refusal to except Christ, and he says that, "not all who descend from Israel are really Israel" this is because their covenant was broken, they refused rhe messiah and the promise now goes to all nations.
look too at verses 30, 31, he further states that people of the nations, "though not pursuing righteousness, attained righteousness, the righteousness that results from faith" but contrasts that with literal Israelites saying, "but Israel, although pursuing a law of righteousness, did not attain to that law." He then says that they had no faith (because they denied Christ) and that they stumbled over the law instead of excepted the one who fulfilled the law.
So throughout this entire chapter, Paul is making the point that the Jews lost their special position with God when they denied the one who fulfilled the law. And shows that because of this the promise now was extended to all nations, even those who are not descendants of Israel, aka Jacob.(verse 6).
-
17
How do the JW's get around this scripture??
by Crazyguy inhebrews 9:27new international version (niv).
27 just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, .
.
-
-
Jonathan Drake
@prologos
i should clarify I know the effects on history don't necessarily make it true per say. I meant only that the individual is special, made so by the devotion to the person existing for a little over 2000 years or so now. Your references thee to people like Buddha and such, by way of comparison, I would never say such men weren't special even though I don't follow the religion formed around them. They were certainly special in one way or another if they have effected the shape of an entire people's culture. That's what I meant. Regardless of its truth. I hope that I expressed my meaning better here.
-
67
Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?
by TerryWalstrom inthe purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.
the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.
by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .
-
-
Jonathan Drake
Let's leave it at this, it's evident that you and I have an issue communicating. For whatever reason you can't grasp what I'm actually saying, and apparently from your expressions nor I you.
Therefore it is best we go our separate ways. You seem convinced you are right rather than interested in a discussion, and I'm not going to talk up to you. References won't matter really, as I would assume you have your own and believe them to be fact rather than theory since there is no way to be sure absolutely 100% what was going on that far back. But I can say I am very convinced when comparing the various cultures that the worship of the one God, which you are correct would have been called El, is much older than the gods that sprang up later. According to the bible, aside from the cultures, the God previousky known as El Shaddai was not known by name until he revealed it, giving him a distinction that didn't preciously exist because el is not a name it's a title.
He had no reason to provide a distinction previously, as he was the only one called God. From what I have read in two of the books I have currently, this seems most likely.
Having said that, I'll leave you to your own beliefs about it, and I apologize for getting somewhat heated. It is frustrating to me when I am being misunderstood and it appears that isn't going to change in this instance. I will also say I am willing to acquire any reference you think I should read from which you have built your position and read it myself. but I am now going to step away from this thread and only check it for any reference you believe I should read.
Pas to my own referenced I have one trustworthy and one not as much. "The first is the Oxford history of the biblical world" which I confess only being half through. The second is a copy of the two Babylons by Alexander hislop. The second isn't quit as trustworthy, and the entire book is about attacking the Catholic Church. However: in doing so he does site a lot of good points using sound historical sources such as Eusebius and many others which I took the time to verify myself - and he uses these to show the origins of the idolatrous world around Melchizadek. If you check this book however, I can't stress enough how important it is to check his sources, because over half of his book is complete garbage, but the first half is full of bery sound, referenced, observances of the ancient world.
The former book, which is far more reliable and much larger, includes a great deal of information about el which, whether they noticed or not, matches the book of Enochs discription of the ancient world very well. The book explains that El Shadday is better translated as the mountain one, and the el was the father of the pantheon made around him. You may not have read Enoch I'm not sure, but according to that book, Angels were sent to teach mankind early technologies and these Angels settled on a mountain from which they came to teach. It was these Angels who began to mingle with human women and teach things they weren't supposed to and ended up imprisoned for their deeds and precipitating events tat lead to the flood.
So from what I've read of the God El, it fits fully with the ancient manuscripts depictions of the God who was yahweh. Also, this book shows that el came first, he is called the father of the other gods in the pantheon according to the ancient texts. There were evidently some who felt this worship of the others were wrong however, and they stuck to the one God. From these who worshipped the one God you find men such as Melchizadek, who only worshipped Elshaddai (the God of the mountain) while the others around him took to worshipping the entire pantheon developed around this God. And according to Gensis, abraham claimed this god as his, and as soon as he left his idolatrous home land he sought out Melchizadek, the priest of the one God.
This history, and the sources referenced in the book as the ancient sources, demonstrate el was the first God to be worshipped. And only later was a pantheon created around him by the people of the ancient world.