Posts by peacefulpete

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

However, while some of Philo's language may bear resemblance to later Christian doctrines, there are significant differences that show why Philo's Logos is not the same as the Christian understanding of Christ as the divine Logos.

Of course, I said that. Philo had not developed the idea of the Logos himself dying, that seems to have been the innovation of the earliest Christians. Philo had taken the language and concepts of Jewish philosopher Aristobulus and expanded upon them, Aristobulus ran with the philosophy of his mentors including Aristotle etc. That's how it works in the real world.

Just how these earliest Christians arrived at their innovation is a matter of debate. Did they simply further the parallel mythotype drama which in some cases included a death and restoration? Had they drawn inferences from the OT stories of Jonah, the suffering servant, or perils of David, the curses of those hung on a tree? Had the group shared with the Qumran's Holy Ones in disavowing the Temple cult as corrupt?

All the above would seem to do it pretty well.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

Sorry watching Tv and typing.

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

For Philo, the Logos did not become human; it remained a distant mediator, a non-personal force that facilitated the interaction between God and the material world.

That is an interesting topic. Philo seemingly allows for this as he does say:

Logos that is called God... For no name belongs rightly to the Absolute, who
is of a nature to exist simply, not to be described. There is an old legend that the deity at different times visits different cities in human form,
is an old legend that the deity at different times visits
different cities in human form, seeking out cases of unright-
eousness and lawlessness. Perhaps it is not true, but even
so it is profitable and expedient that it should be current.
And Scripture, though it employs more reverent conceptions
of the Absolute, does at the same time liken God to man,
speaking of his face, voice, anger, and so forth, for the profit
of the learner. Some are so dull that they cannot conceive of God at all without a body
of God at all without a body.

It seems Philo is suggesting that the Logos (the deity) may have actually appeared as flesh, but he was not sure of the literalness of the legends. What seems clear is that in at least some discussions he did personify the Logos to a high degree.

What is the man who was created? And how is that man distinguished who was made after the image of God? (#Ge 2:7). This man was created as perceptible to the senses, and in the similitude of a Being appreciable only by the intellect; but he who in respect of his form is intellectual and incorporeal, is the similitude of the archetypal model as to appearance, and he is the form of the principal character; but this is the word of God, the first beginning of all things, the original species or the archetypal idea, the first measure of the universe. ...

Notice he describes this 'word of God' as a incorporeal "being". I'm not sure just how literally he conceived of it (or more importantly his readers) but then as I said all of this is imagery of invisible stuff, (he like many understood the Primeval History as allegory) so where does metaphor start and end.

It seems relevant that within the larger Neoplatonic concept of Logos as a bridge between spirit and corporeal, we do find traditions that describe the Logos figure as sharing in the corporeal including having flesh. (Osiris/Dionysus).

So, while Philo unsurprisingly doesn't expressly say his Logos took on flesh he does see in Moses and Aaron and other human characters the 'internal Logos' and 'utterance Logos' embodied. He also leaves open the possibility that legends that say Logos/God did take human from may have happened.

Also parallel the Christ/Logos of Paul et.al. is the role as high priest.

For there are, it would seem, two temples of God — the

one, this world in which God's firstborn, the divine Logos,
is highpriest ; and the other the rational soul, whereof the
true man is priest, whose material image is he who performs the ancestral prayers and sacrifices,
the ancestral prayers and sacrifices, who is commanded to
put on the aforesaid coat (of finest linen), the counterpart of the whole
heaven, that the world may join with man and man with
the universe in the rite.

So, here we have Philo describing Logos as a High Priest whose rite affects the world. Of course, the writer of John or Paul had something new to add to the story. The propitiatory death (sacrifice) of the Logos/Christ. Philo (or his Alexandrian school) didn't come up with that one though I believe he, being fond of allegory, could have appreciated it. Paul, remember, claimed to have drawn his Christ from scripture typology in Philonic style.

Regarding your comment that Christianity especially since Nicaea have a distinct formulation of God. That is true. Yet there were steps along the way. Origen as you know mentions Philo as one of his predecessors and shared many notions of freewill and the divine. They later declared his ideas heretical. It is also interesting that the Nicene Creed includes the words,:

“God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God, begotten not made, one in being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”

Which appears to be quoting Philo.

In the same manner God, being his own light, is perceived by himself alone, nothing and no other being co-operating with or assisting him, a being at all able to contribute to pure comprehension of his existence; But these men have arrived at the real truth, who form their ideas of God from God, of light from light.”(Praem. 45-46)

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

The idea that some ancient traditions viewed Yahweh as subordinate to El Elyon (The Most High) is rooted in speculative interpretations of early Hebrew texts. This theory often emerges from a misunderstanding of passages like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, where Yahweh is seen as receiving his inheritance from the Most High. However, within the broader biblical canon, especially in the prophetic and wisdom literature, Yahweh is clearly identified as the Most High God, Creator, and Sovereign of all (see Isaiah 45:5-7, Psalm 83:18).

You site precisely the texts (2nd Isa and some Psalms, Genesis/Ex examples= Redactor's interpolation combining El Shaddai and Yahweh traditions) that identify Yahweh as the Most High, however as you probably know many other texts do not, and many others obfuscate on the point. What you describe as a 'misunderstanding' was apparently a foundational tenet for some that lasted centuries. Yahweh was Israel's God but The Most High was The God of all. Monotheism of 2nd Isaiah never was universally adopted, a compromise was the second power concept reflected in many textual examples:

Ex 23:20 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared.
21 Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.

Even as late as the Clementine Recognitions

For every nation has an angel, to whom God has committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet, being asked, he does not give such testimony to himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds the power of all things, has divided all the nations of the earth into seventy-two parts, and over these he hath appointed angels as princes. But to the one among the archangels who is greatest, was committed the government of those who, before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High God (Rec. 2.42)

And Ascension of Isaiah:

35. And I saw the Lord (Christ) and the second Angel, and they were standing.
36. And the second whom I saw was on he left of my Lord. And I asked: "Who is this?" and he said unto me: "Worship Him, for He is the Angel of the Holy Spirit, who speaketh in thee and the rest of the righteous."...40. And I saw how my Lord and the Angel of the Spirit worshipped, and they both together praised God.

The idea that Yahweh had gone from a son of El who receives Israel to becoming The Great Angel of the Most High in charge of Israel, isn't a difficult leap. Somehow, though appreciating that process of other sons of El becoming recast as angels, I had not seen the potential for the same to have occurred for Yahweh, at least in circles that had not equated Yahweh with The Most High. (like 2nd Isaiah and a redactor of the J and P traditions). There is much more to this.

All of this emphasizes the diversity of theological outlooks preserved in the texts themselves.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher, did indeed distinguish between "The Most High God" (El Elyon) and the "Logos," which he viewed as an intermediary figure.

Correct

However, Philo’s conception of the Logos is heavily influenced by Greek philosophical categories and is not equivalent to the Christian understanding of the Logos...

Not correct. Philo's Logos was both God and an intermediary just as the writer of Gospel John's was.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

Not merely distinguished from “God the Father”, but from “God”. In any case, when Bible writers use the phrase “God the Father” they appear to use the phrase synonymously and interchangeably with “God”.

Philo's position. The God, (El Elyon, Most High, ὁ Θεός ὁ ὕψιστος) distinguished from Logos/God.

I've been putting pieces together that I'd observed but never connected. Perhaps the merging of ancient traditions of El Shaddai and Yahweh was never complete. There seems to have always been some who identified Yahweh as a subordinate to the Most High. This persisted in some circles, then further developed into Christianity. 'Name theology' and 'Kabod' embodiment also understood then not as a break from the past but as a twist on it, or perhaps a rediscovery of it.

IOW, in some corners and some texts Yahweh=The Great Angel, the Presence, the Name, the Logos. His Father THE God, Most High. I've run across this before, maybe another thread.

73

JWN, 23 years posting Blondie

by blondie in

jw
friends

can i call you friends, i think so after 23 years posting here.

i am dismayed how jwn is being "dominated" or taken over by a few posters, peppering the comments.

in the past, the admin did not approve of this and did remove some posters from jwn.

peacefulpete

Leaving a cult includes learning other opinions and how they have been arrived at. Learning to learn. Honestly, I pity someone attempting to start over. The internet is a wonderful repository of religious information, most of which is objectively wrong, but don't think it is our role to screen out the noise. That starts to sound like censorship. I feel our role is to assist sorting it out by encouraging critical thinking.

I'm sure many have the view that my critical research is offensive, even harmful. So far no one has asked me to leave but I can imagine it has been considered. I have valued the input of others with contrary views, it has pulled me back from the fringe a few times. lol.

Discussion boards are different than other formats like Reddit. There is supposed to be an exchange, and reasoning and that means sometimes topics get mired down. That's not a problem, it's a reflection of how scholarship works. If a topic reaches an impasse, that suggests a new approach is necessary.

The bottom line is always, civility.

ps. I'll also add that mental health must be a factor. Someone with the opinion that angels/demons exist is one thing but someone who talks to them is another.

30

Experiences After Leaving

by Freeatlast2024 in

i am writing to ask if anyone cares to share their experience and/or offer advice for people leaving.

i was raised in the religion, and both my parents died when i was very young.

i recently stopped associating because my conscience no longer allows me to preach or support the organization.

peacefulpete

When the day came to take my leave, I didn't have many people in my life to lean on. One workmate almost surprisingly became my best friend. He had not shared my experience but was interested or polite enough to let me unload. I also read about a local salon discussion group meeting to air topics in my town. I soon connected with a whole crowd of thinking and conscientious people. To my delight my wife soon joined me. Volunteering is a great idea as others have said. We did roadside cleanup, invasive plant removal projects and joined a nature club that had outings. We felt like new people. Not every person became a lasting friendship, but they were all important at the time. My wife was first to return to school and start a new career, I followed. Life is good, take action to keep it moving forward.

167

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

In my view both sides are dismissive of the obvious. The Logos concept was an entirely Greek concept representing the bridging of Heavenly and earthly worlds, immaterial, and realities. Philo and others merged this with OT depictions of deity to explain how his God could be both transcendent and relatable. The earliest Christians would never have denied this provenance. Many thought of the Greek sages as having shared in divine revelation, not as enemies of it. Was this Logos (or Great Angel, created creator, Son of God, image of God etc.) merely metaphor? It depends upon your definition; we are after all discussing imagery of invisible spiritual concepts. Where does metaphor start and end? Conceiving a spirit being acting as agency of The transcendent God,IMO, meant more than just metaphor but not tangibly other than that God..... a piece of God? The Holy Spirit in many ways mirrors this as yet another emanation of The God. .

This 'Mystery' was lost on most Christians of later generations. The Gospel tales were too successful, the allegory became the reality. The Trinity became a compromise, Mystery literalized.

19

The World Today

by peacefulpete in

jw
friends

i've been meaning to share some recent experiences that defy the usual tropes about the 'world gone to hell' or 'people now days".. as some of you may remember i was seriously ill for a while and had to close my business and shop.

now, as it seems i have beaten it, i put up a sign again advertising that in a limited way i'm back.. what amazes me is how many times over the past 2 years customers and even competition have written and called to express their concern and best wishes.

just last week i had a personal visit of someone who i thought of as a rival, come in and shake my hand sincerely happy to see me up and around.

peacefulpete

To all.