Are you aware of the other Thread by SBF on the Trinity ? maybe best to join that ?
Posts by Phizzy
-
5The Old Testament TRINITY!
by BoogerMan inclearly inferred & proven by scriptures - though not specifically stated - that the 3 were one & the same essence!
(exodus 2:24) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 3:16) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 6:3) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 6:8) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (exodus 33:1) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (numbers 32:11) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (deuteronomy 1:8) abraham, isaac and jacob.. (deuteronomy 6:10) abraham, isaac and jacob.
(deuteronomy 9:5) abraham, isaac and jacob.
-
-
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
Phizzy
It strikes me that a lot of the argument about this is based upon the idea that the Bible Writers were inspired and had knowledge from god, therefore we have to argue that because one Scripture says thus and so, another Writer could not have thought differently.
The Bible is not inspired in any way, so we cannot take what is an Anthology of Writings from very different times in history, and in religious Thought, and try to make sense of it as a whole.
The Bible Writers had their own concepts of Theology, and later of Christology, often very different and in tension with the thoughts of other Writers.
The very basis for the Trinity Doctrine can be traced back to the ideas that the Jewish Educated Elite encountered and adopted while in Exile in Babylon, the concept of Hypostasis was not foreign to them, so the three in one, ousia or substance of a deity is not some new 3rd Century C.E idea at all.
What has complicated matters is anthropomorphising each "substance" or "essence" of the Deity to make them three different individuals within one "Godhead", a concept because of its muddled constituent parts, is difficult for us to process.
It would have been far easier for Christianity if had stuck to the more understandable concept of god that the Jews had, and if Christians hadn't tried to graft in the Jesus Figure to the person of YHWH.
-
6
Finger of God
by peacefulpete ina myriad (or close) of threads have discussed the depiction of deity in the ot and nt.
many exjws simply can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of hypostases of god.
hypostases as i'm using the term refer to personified conceptualizations of divinity often acting in a particular role.
-
-
Phizzy
" however the writings reflect a far more sophisticated and esoteric conception of deity than the WT insists ".
That is my perception too, it makes me wonder if that sophisticated way of thinking of Deity came from Babylon, it seems not to be there in earlier thought or writings, but unravelling when particular ideas were perhaps written back in to Scripture is a constant struggle.
In the first century BCE, the Greek historian Diodorus of Sicily praised the Babylonians for their devotion to philosophy. But that thinking may have come from further East, I would imagine these ideas were totally new to the Israelite Elite exiled in Babylon, but they embraced them with alacrity and zeal.
It is a new thought to me that the so-called "Hellenization" of Jewish Religious thought occurred most likely in Babylon, and they therefore had adopted such ideas before the Greek philosophers like Plato.
It all adds to the argument that the development and adoption of the Trinity Doctrine is firmly based upon religious thought we find in the whole of the Bible, and is not some upstart doctrine to be rejected out of hand as the W.T, and others do.
The old canard that the O.T was written by "Bronze Age goat herders" looks even more silly now !
-
6
Finger of God
by peacefulpete ina myriad (or close) of threads have discussed the depiction of deity in the ot and nt.
many exjws simply can't seem to wrap their minds around the concept of hypostases of god.
hypostases as i'm using the term refer to personified conceptualizations of divinity often acting in a particular role.
-
-
Phizzy
I agree, The Evolution from basic anthropomorphising of gods to a more "abstract metaphoric sense" is plain to see as you outline.
Prof. Francesca Stavrakopoulou , in her excellent, entertaining, and frankly hilarious in places Book, "God an Anatomy" * traces this evolution, and she often quotes what the best Hebrew translation of many Scriptures is, where later Bible Writers obscure the original meaning, and even Translators have tried to obscure what was said.
She comments on the "Finger of God " engraving upon the tablets that god gave to Moses, as verse Exodus 32 v 16 says, thus " As Yahweh's fingertip crafts the commandments by which his worshippers are to live, he inscribes his physical presence in to the covenant with his people".
So the simple idea of a god with fingers quickly came to have a deeper meaning.
* I recommend Prof. Stavrakopoulou's Book, if you haven't read it P.P. and to others on here, it really opens ones eyes to so much that is hidden in Scripture, much of it being the real Sexy bits, sanitised by a number of later hands !
-
12
What are you wearing for the special talk
by ExBethelitenowPIMA inmany are talking on whatsapp about what to wear.
sisters wearing slacks and brothers wearing all sorts of different tops.
-
-
Phizzy
It will be fascinating to see how far the JW's , especially the PIMO ones, are prepared to go with this. Any "Counsel" by old school types can be ignored, as such people now have no mandate.
How long before we see this ?
-
23
New rules for dress & greeting disfellowshipped: It's even worse!
by neat blue dog ini know they're panicking and trying to gain favor with governments, former members, prospective converts & those who are teetering, all for financial worries.
still, the latest update in some ways made things worse, and if there's any jws watching it who are beginning to wake up it should be very disturbing.. starting with dress codes: they say that suits, ties & skirts are no longer required, but in so doing they admit that they were required, something not often appearing as an explicit command in print.
(similar to how lett referred to the "policy on beards" in his video, even though this direct policy wasn't made available to rank and file.
-
-
Phizzy
The "Hounders" now have no basis upon which to do their "hounding", they simply will have to STFU !
As for the "Stumbling" nonsense, no J.W with any self respect should fall for that`, how can you be "Stumbled" out of the "True religion" over such infantile trivial matters ?
I remember several instances where people had been "stumbled" over quite serious matters, and no action was taken by the Elders against the offending person, and the offended one was left to stew for a very long time, and then, maybe got a "Shepherding" visit".
Anybody hounded now can tell the "hounder" to "go forth and multiply" without a qualm.
-
32
Punkofnice
by jhine indoes anyone know how punky is ?
he hasn't posted in a while ?
jan from tam .
-
-
Phizzy
Just a Bump for this Thread in case anyone who knows Punky ( Paul ? ) hasn't seen it.
He is from the Peterborough area.
-
9
Lawsuits for shunning for decades
by jehovaxx innow they suddenly examine the context of these scriptures and have come to the conclusion that it only applies to apostates and those who continue in serious sin???????.
there are families torn apart by their shunning policies and some have said the gb are wrong and these scriptures only apply to those carrying on in serious sin?
but no for the last several decades families have been ripped apart for lifelong shunning just because some don’t want to be jws anymore.. the lawsuits that are to come will not make up for life long relationships being ruined.
-
-
Phizzy
" only to invite them back to meetings."
Yes, that is the "Direction" from the G,B, but while doing so what an opportunity will be afforded for the J.W's doing so to find out WHY the former J.W left, and why they will probably never go back !
I know the practicing J.W is not supposed to discuss " Spiritual matters" with the former attender, but just one well thought out reply to such an invitation may well plant a seed.
All of these latest moves may be more counter productive for the Org. in reality than they intended, though no doubt will keep up the figures of those attending for a while.
-
9
Lawsuits for shunning for decades
by jehovaxx innow they suddenly examine the context of these scriptures and have come to the conclusion that it only applies to apostates and those who continue in serious sin???????.
there are families torn apart by their shunning policies and some have said the gb are wrong and these scriptures only apply to those carrying on in serious sin?
but no for the last several decades families have been ripped apart for lifelong shunning just because some don’t want to be jws anymore.. the lawsuits that are to come will not make up for life long relationships being ruined.
-
-
Phizzy
" Insolvency might."
Yes, if they are arraigned in Court for the Shunning of the past, they will have to defend themselves, to avoid paying $$$.
I am sure such cases will not be totally successful sadly, to the extent of getting the Org. to abandon such practices, but the cost is still there for the Org. and maybe in individual cases even compensation may have to be paid, but I do not see any Court actually ruling that the practice of shunning cannot continue at some level.
What is not in doubt is DFing and Shunning go against several basic Human Rights, so such Cases will highlight this for the whole World to see, and the Org. will shoot themselves in the foot once again to protect a few $$$.
-
9
When did JWS start disfellowshipping and why?
by lettersfromthevoid ini know this question has been discussed, but i can't find the topic i was just looking at, so.... one thing about this is that the other posters here didn't mention, that i noticed anyway, that there was this member of the gb in the 40s and early 50s (but possibly during rutherford) who was at odds with rutherford or knorr, and they wanted to do away with them, so they accused (falsely) that person, then they declared that the punishment for that sin was something they invented, or at least once iteration of, what we know as the modern disfellowshipping practice among jws.. so, that is why they invented that doctrine; they.
-
-
Phizzy
DFing and Shunning were things in the time of Rutherford, as his words in this WT show :
Watchtower 1920 Apr 1 pp.100,101
"We would not refuse to treat one as a brother because he did not believe the Society is the Lord's channel. If others see it in a different way, that is their privilege. There should be full liberty of conscience."
It is interesting that this very much mirrors what the Org. wishes to achieve now, i.e that treatment of individuals who disagree with the Org, for any reason will not change from the overt practices of the past, but will be identified as INDIVIDUAL JW's "Exercising their Bible trained conscience ".
Thus the Org. can argue in Courts that it is not mandated by them, which we of course KNOW is not true, for individual J.W's to go against their natural love for friends and family would not happen based upon Scripture, but will continue because of fear of being perceived as going against the "direction" of the G.B.