It will probably be reversed again, lol. As a couple comments have said, it's just a bizarre test of control. In years gone by marriages were ended over the opinions of a bunch of old guys about what body part can touch what body part. Is sucking toes forbidden? How about tongue in ears? Licking armpits? Can you draw us a diagram? You can? now I'm turned on.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
60
1/25 WT: Oral and Anal sex are a go - if she's ok with it
by neat blue dog inhe will not pressure her to engage in sexual acts that make her feel uncomfortable, that are demeaning, or that bother her conscience..... the bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean.
a christian couple must make decisions that reflect their resolve to honor jehovah, to please each other, and to maintain a clean conscience.
generally speaking, a couple would not discuss with others this intimate aspect of their marriage..
-
-
-
59
Proof of two destinies for believers in the Bible, heavenly and earthly
by slimboyfat inthe jw idea that believers are destined either for heavenly life or for endless life on earth comes in for significant criticism by critics of various kinds.
even some groups, such as the christadelphians, who share belief in a future paradise earth, don’t share the view that some christians are destined for life in heaven.
yet there is surprisingly quite a lot of evidence in the bible for the existence of two distinct groups of believers.
-
-
peacefulpete
Part of the appeal of apocalyptic prophecy interpretation is its quasi-scientific sounding words and impressively complicated charts. By engaging the mind with seemingly impenetrable puzzles they distract themselves from the disconfirming realities of the texts themselves. Their faith is portrayed as a 'science'. The 'Gnostic' faiths did the same with their pictographs and diagrams uncovering hidden insights from the spirit world.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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:.
-
-
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
but it must be noted that Philo's Logos is fundamentally different from the Christian Logos. Philo saw the Logos as a mediating principle, not as a person who could incarnate.
I do understand Philo's Logos/Son, who shifted from allegorical to heavily personified, is distinct from how Nicaea understood Jesus.
Yet I'll remind you that Philo himself allowed for the possibility of incarnation in the stories of visitations, however unquestionably he preferred understanding the anthropomorphic tales to be allegorical. Serving to "explain the supreme to the human condition which needs images because of the limitations of human understanding" as David Baker phrased it. He, as well as Greek 'pagan' writers, had no difficulty reading older tales filled with incarnations and anthropomorphisms as allegorical. In fact, they had no qualms creating new tales with the same allegorical approach.
Why would we assume the writers of the dozens of Gospels felt any different?
When we see in Mark, and its embellished versions, pervasive use of OT allegory and typology, we have to ask if the entirety was intended to be understood this way. The implied recurring refrain is "What that writer meant was....". As Augustine said: “in the Old Testament the New lies hid, and in the New the Old is exposed".
IMO, the writer of the earliest Gospels incarnated their Christ using OT source material just as they drew nearly every aspect of his biography and actions from the OT. They did it in the same way as Philo understood the incarnation stories of the OT; to "explain the supreme to the human condition".
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
So, Philo and other Hellenized Jews understood many passages in the OT as identifying emanations (Son of God, Word, Wisdom, heavenly high Priest, Great Angel, Glory of God, Prescence of God, Spirit of God etc.) of the Most High, that in fact were the only direct connection with humans.
He/it/she bridged the transcendent/immanence (tangible/earthly) barrier. The Son of God, Word, Great Angel etc. was worshipped as God and, as an emanation of God, that was not understood as polytheism. Son of God was the same as saying Glory of God. It follows that prior to any creative acts, these emanations of God were not necessary. The expressions/beings Son of God, Logos and Wisdom are all specifically referred to in the OT, Philo and Gospel John as the first and only direct generation of God by God Most High.
It should be said that Philo and his school were not completely original in their understanding, they were perceptively observing the work of the Deuteronomists and Priestly editors in consciously providing a buffer between God and earthly matters. (e.g. injection of an angel with God's name or use of new terms Glory of God and Presence of God as representations of God) We even see this concept in Talmudic references to 'Metatron' the Great Angel who stood in for God. Philo simply took that precedent and described it through the lens of Neoplatonism, and in doing so expanded upon both sources. This Hellenization of Judaism was, a couple centuries later, disavowed in an effort to reinvent Judaism as distinct both from Hellenism and Christianity. However, in reality the belief, very popular during late 2nd Temple times, was that the Greek thinkers had in fact drawn many of their ideas, from the Torah and therefore simply represented 'Moses in attic Greek'.
The idea that the Logos/Sophia (and other variants as well) was the site of God's presence in the world-indeed of God's Word or Wisdom as a mediator figure-was a very widespread one in the thought-world of first century and even second-century Judaism.
Leslie W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought.As a natural consequence of messianism of the late 2nd temple period, in some circles the Logos was assigned a new role, heavenly Messiah. We see this in popular writings like 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch regarded as scripture by some NT writers wherein a supernatural being with a human or human appearing Son of Man.
For from the beginning the Son of Man (man) was hidden,
and the Most High preserved him in the Presence of His might,
and he revealed him to the chosen. . . .
And all the kings and the mighty and the exalted and those who rule the land will fall on their faces in his presence; and they will worship and set their hope on the Son of Man,
and they will supplicate and petition for mercy from him.This mirrors the Son of Man section of Daniel in thought and wording. While the "son of Man has been debated to be variously an alternative name/form of Yahweh, Michael and by later Christians as Jesus, in fact they are all right. The figure is fated to save the Jews as the Most High's agent. While identification with Yahweh might surprise, recall that it was Yahweh's appearance as a man that started all this.
As was discussed here in other threads the Son of Man's description as 'rider on the clouds' suggests a Yahweh/Baal connection but yet Michael is later in the section identified as the savior of the Jews. This might represent a later hand attempting to clarify, as Michael the Great Prince (who is like God) was also another of the names of the Great Angel/second power. Christian writers had Jesus self-identify as that Son of Man figure and Son of God, which is why the audience accused him of blaspheme. He was identifying as an emanation of God i.e. God.
Another theological element of the times was the Adam Elyon, heavenly Man concept. Philo speaks of this as well. It all revolves around the two creation stories in Genesis but in the end, there is a 'heavenly man' and the earthly. Various Christain sects link the concepts, the Logos, Son of Man and the Heavenly Adam.
At a point now lost to us (mid 1rst century BCE-mid 1rst century CE) this Logos, Son of God personified emanation became the focus of a new Jewish sect. That group itself soon splintered into sects, in some cases over the matter of the Jewish Law. For instance, the Elcesaites retained a fully Jewish perspective of the Law, denied Paul, but were anchored in Christian mystic concepts that later Church fathers deemed heretical. that The Ascension of Isaiah (minus some later interpolations) appears to represent an early (preGospel) form of worship that embraced the concept of the second power. The writer clearly says Adam, Abel and all the righteous worshipped the Angel of the Most High also called the Glory of God. The distinct aspect is the description of this figure descending though the levels of heaven in disguise as a man of flesh and eventually being killed by demonic enemies by being hung on a tree. -
31
What made you look behind the jw curtain?
by Touchofgrey ini was listening to a lunchtime call in radio show about jws and the personal experiences of being disfellowshiped, and a former elder called in saying he was disfellowshiped for asking about jws and their involvement in the un in the 1990s ,and he just said look it up.. thinking that it was a made up lie ,so i looked it up and it was true even a letter confirming it from the un itself and that led me here and to jwfacts and further research into the history and teachings of jw and walked out the door about 5 years ago.
.
-
-
peacefulpete
Researching for the Flood of Noah's Day has Meaning for Our Day talk was a huge punch in the gut. My experiences at Bethel, made it all too human, further serious human drama on a foreign assignment, it goes on. The Greatest man book wherein it became obvious the story only works as a rewrite glossing over the contradictions. But in the end, it was research using books from the library about the book of Daniel and how real Bible scholarship regards the book. That is very condensed, and I'd probably focus on other events and personal epiphanies if asked again, but ultimately it all just stopped working and I couldn't play pretend anymore. -
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
TrinitarianismChristianity is rooted in Neo-Platonism which predates Nicaea and was the current philosophical doctrine at that time which influencedsome of the Church FathersPaul and the writer of John. You acknowledge this by the fact that there was an adoption of many Greek and Latin terms from Greek philosophylaterincorporated in Church doctrine or theology prior to and after Nicaea. -
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
Quite clearly, when Justin was writing (second century), they had not yet received the clarification that we do not take the type-antitype approach except where the Bible provides a clear basis for doing so.
I'm guessing you said that tongue in cheek. lol.
Yes. My primary reason for quoting Justin was to show that when he read John 1:1, he understood that "the Word was god" referred to "another god" subject to ton theon, the Maker of all things.
Justin never mentions the Gospel John or for that matter any Gospel. (apart from an interpolation). He, like the writer of John, draws from a deep tradition of second power theology.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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 early Christians, including Paul and John, did not see themselves as departing from monotheism but as expanding the understanding of God's nature to include the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ, as fully God.
I agree. That was also true of Philo, Justin and the writer of the Ascension of Isaiah. They were adamant that Logos (or any of the names used) was an emanation of the Most High not a God apart or rival God.
Justin as a trained philosopher like Philo understood the provenance of these concepts, he had no problem with that, why do you? I think it is interesting his choice to use of Socratic dialogue, a literary mouthpiece (Trypho) to deliver his doctrinal thesis.
Since you expanded a smidge on the topic, I'll throw the door open and say the so-called Gnostic branches of what became called 'Christianity', all regarded themselves as monotheistic. They were attracted to the concept of emanations of The God as explanations for many things including the impermanence of the physical world. Some used passages that equated Yahweh with a second power, this one however did not resist the temptation to seek worship and so created an imperfect world, something not intended by the Most High. They drew from the same OT sources and 2nd Temple traditions as those who limited the emanations to just 2, (Logos and Holy Spirit).
You reference Philo's concept of the Logos as a bedrock for early Christian Christology, suggesting that the belief in a "second power" or intermediary influenced Christian beliefs about Christ.
My wording was unclear, I meant to say that his/their method of interpretation of passages featuring the second power concept was a bedrock upon which later writers like Paul and the writer of John stood.
While it is true that Philo's Logos concept had some influence on early Christian thought, especially in the Gospel of John, the Christian understanding of the Logos differs significantly from Philo's. Philo's Logos is an abstract, intermediary principle through which God interacts with the world, but it is not fully personal or incarnate in the way that Christ is presented in the New Testament....The inclusion of mundane details, such as the names of Jesus' family members (e.g., James, His brother) and his interactions with well-known historical figures, points to the Gospel writers’ intention to root their accounts in historical reality.
You must realize that is circular reasoning. You declare the Gospel to be different from works like the Bacchae because you see the characters and story to be different. I don't. That is the issue in discussion. Since we have touched on the Bacchae, note that Dionysius plays two roles, one as a lowly human and one role off set as a god. The characters all have names and family that are named. Their hometowns (real) and nationalities (real) are included. What identifies the story as a myth/dramatization are the supernatural aspects, Dionysus making it thunder for example.
Is it really outrageous to believe the writer of a play later transcribed as the Gospel Mark, ought to be regarded as myth/dramatization for the same reasons?
Of course a generation or three later were told the story was real and not allegory. That was also true for many lesser educated Greeks, who mistook the allegories as more than that.
-
164
How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?
by slimboyfat infor 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
Earnest.... In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Trypho first asks "show us that the spirit of prophecy admits another god besides the Maker of all things", and Justin answers "there is, and that there is said to be, another god and lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an angel, because he announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things (above whom there is no other god) wishes to announce to them.". Whatever you may argue about Justin, he is answering a question about another god.
If you read a little further, he makes clear he understands that Angel is the "God of Abraham" but not the Maker/Father of all things (aka the Most High).:
Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob?....this God who appeared to Abraham, and is minister to God the Maker of all things, being born of the Virgin, became man, of like passions with all, as you said previously.
I mentioned this verse earlier, as evidence of some regarded a second power as a substitute/stand-in for God. It is interesting that Justin identified that angel with God's name as his Christ but known by many other names.
I shall give you another testimony, my friends, from the Scriptures, that God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave (Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father's will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all things, and Word, and Wisdom, and Power, and the Glory of the Begetter, will bear evidence to me, when He speaks by Solomon the following.......Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: ‘And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.‘ Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses(Oshea, Joshua). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, ‘for My name is in Him,’ was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob’s name was changed to this also.
I find this last paragraph especially interesting as Justin insists the name "Jesus" was another of the many names this second power went by. He repeats a tradition that the 'Joshua' of the Exodus story was to be interpreted in Pesher style.
It is pretty clear that Philonic reading of the Pentateuch was a bedrock foundation of the belief in a Christ. A Christ who was a second power, an emanation of the Father of all. This not the teaching of the JWs nor the Trinity.
Sorry about the quotes, sometimes it does weird things for me.