Posts by David

76

The Trinity Easily Explained in 29 Words

by maccauk in

a man can be a father .

a man can be a son.

a man can be a husband.

David_Jay

Why the need to explain or convince people regarding the concept of the Trinity? Is it that you cannot let go of that Watchtower habit to proselytize others? You know every time you do that, the JWs win.

People here don't need to be convinced of the Trinity or God or religion. It's one thing to defend yourself when someone insults you or tries to hurt you for no reason.

But to go out of your way to tell us, ex-JWs, that you can convincingly explain new doctrine to us in an evangelizing manner--well, that is where most of us haven't much tolerance.

Notice I didn't say we react with malice. I mean intolerance like one gets nauseated at seeing food that once made him or her very ill. They can't stomach it.

If you're an ex-JW who has found mainstream Christianity as something that works for you, most of us (if not all) are supporting you as someone who has successfully left the Watchtower behind. Yea for you!

But we're not your new subjects to proselytize. You can use your knowledge of things like the Trinity to disprove how the Watchtower is ignorant of what it teaches, but it's really far from "Emily Post" to preach and try to convert your fellow ex-Witnesses here on this forum.

Especially do our atheist neighbors on the forum need our support. More than others, they get treated as non-members of society, usually cannot speak up for what they don't believe in while in public, and have little respect from Christians (who oddly preach 'love they neighbor'). So if you're gonna mention religion, best to leave your opinions at the door and stick to academic critical analysis.

While no one's saying you should accept and not call out hate speech if you ever encounter it (which is really rare here), you can talk about religion if it's used to counter Watchtower teaching. But leave making disciples of others here out.

Otherwise you can talk about the Trinity each time you are on the board as long as it's useful in that particular manner. Support each person where there are, help us see where we still got the Watchtower monkey on our backs, and defend us where we stand when some creepy Witness apologist comes on here to attack us. Then you'll do fine.

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

David_Jay

Correction to the above post. The following sentence:

Remember, the writer is trying to make Jesus sound like he is foretelling the destruction of the Second Temple, an event that happened AFTER the gospels were composed...

Should read:

Remember, the writer is trying to make Jesus sound like he is foretelling the destruction of the Second Temple, an event that happened BEFORE the gospels were composed...

The gospel of Mark was composed around the time the Second Temple fell, in 70 CE. The Jewish Christians at the time were hoping that a void would open up that would grant them legitimacy with the Romans as Judaism was legal under Roman law, but Christianity was not.

With the Temple gone, the first Christians (who were of Jewish origin) tried to take the name "Jew" exclusive to themselves before Roman authority. As such, they claimed that Jesus was a prophet and as proof, claimed he "foretold" the victory of the Roman army over Jerusalem symbolized by the Temple's fall.

This attempt backfired in Rome. The Romans had no hatred of the Temple and tried to save it. It caught fire in the siege by mistake. Judaism was still legal throughout the empire after the event.

Also the Jews were not driven away from Jerusalem. It was allowed to prosper with its Jewish population while Christians became the object of persecution. But then Bar Kokhba arose as prince, Jerusalem declared independence from Rome, and then, and only then, were the Jews banned from Jerusalem in 135 CE. But Christians still got no religious freedom and never did get to replace the Jews as they had hoped (not to mention did their Christ ever return during that promised generation).

Mark's Temple prophecy gets extended into Matthew's Parousia prophecy in his revisionist gospel and as happens in Luke's "times of the Gentiles" prophecy. It gets totally dismissed, however, by John who elevates Jesus to God status in his opus, described as someone who has been ruling as God forever and ever anyway.

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

David_Jay

Fisherman,

Remember, the writer is trying to make Jesus sound like he is foretelling the destruction of the Second Temple, an event that happened AFTER the gospels were composed. The city is supposed to fall, Jesus claims the Jews are supposed to be punished for their sins with their blood, and then Jesus is to return and rule as Messiah. None of this happened.

Jesus predicts Jerusalem ending with the Temple, which fell in 70 CE, but the Jews continued living there, flourishing with several years of independence from Rome until 135 with the Bar Kokhba revolt. Jesus still did not return.

The Jews returned to their land in 1947 with Israel once again becoming an independent state. In 2000, Christianity stopped formal proselytizing of Jews, and in 2015 declared the teaching of supersessionism as incompatible with the Gospel.

Jesus still has not returned.

Today's theologians in the Church say the writers may have shaped this discourse with anti-Jewish sentiment no longer appropriate to Christianity. They were hoping that the Temple's fall would be good for them and would see the end of the Jews that didn't follow Jesus, but such views no longer should shape Christian doctrine according to theologians of the Church.

33

The Second Coming of Christ

by maccauk in

the second coming of christ was in the 1st century at the destruction of jerusalem the temple the law and the old covenants.

so the new eternal covenant came into force in which people of every tribe tongue and naation would enter into.

the new jerusalem not built by human hands nor with bricks and mortar its spiritual cannot be seen but people will stream to it the sin issue is done there is no more judgment for those in christ .

David_Jay

Vanderhoven7,

Though I am Jewish, you might be interested to know that outside of the official Jewish-Catholic dialogue sessions, the Parousia was once discussed.

Outside of a few scattered Evanglical Fundamentalist movements and end-of-the-world groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Christianity at large does NOT teach that the Parousia will occur during human history, but only after it culminates. This allows for the end of the physical universe as foreseen by some current scientific cosmological models.

The Parousia occurs only after history has ended, according to mainstream Protestant, Roman Catholic, and especially Orthodox eschatology. It may occur concurrent with history's end, but will not occur as an element of or during history. The Parousia is an element of eternity and not time according to Christology. Time ends with the beginning of Christ's Parousia.

The Scriptural references to the "nations" knowing about the Messiah's Parousia are not meant to be read as "nations" but as "goyim," or Gentiles. It is using old Jewish idiom about earthly Messianic expectations of the Second Temple era when the Jews believed the Gentiles would recognize their earthly Messiah's arrival (Parousia).

Thus the Church reads this language as allegorical. Jesus never literally "comes" a second time anywhere, at any time. Every Christian will experience death. One day, says mainstream Christianity, the world will literally just stop. But when history ends, according to Christianity a new era begins under Christ. This is the Parousia, and this is what Christianity has understood for 2000 years.

The literal "return" of Christ is an Adventist invention of the American Great Disappointment of 1844 from Baptist preacher William Miller. Witnesses are the result of a group fascinated by the formulas of those days, believing they could still work somehow, and that the group that got the date right was favored by Heaven.

But there's never been such a doctrine of a literal return that would literally be witnessed by the nations, not from Christendom anyway.

You're still buying Miller's snake oil. At least buy the real stuff instead of the knockoff, generic fool's gold.

10

Biblical gems

by venus in

though the trunk, branches and even most of the leaves of the bible tree make no sense, there are some leaves here and there which are like gems of high value, such as:.

1) “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” often mistaken as the law of retaliation is actually a beautiful foundation of a perfect judicial system because behind the details the essence is that any loss caused should perfectly and proportionately be compensated.

original writing of this law and its context are not relevant because jesus described them as those being orally transmitted (which makes random additions possible), not written (mathew 5:38-42).

David_Jay

ttdtt,

That's the same thing the KKK flyers said about my Jewish beliefs and culture that were spread throughout my Jacksonville, Florida neighborhood last week. It made the international news.

Along with your words about my people's cultural works, the flyer read: "The only good Jew is a dead Jew."

Do remember that when you call the Bible "bullshit" you are using language that anti-Semitic groups use. You may not subscribe to it, but it is part of my culture, like certain foods, certain type of dress, our history, language, etc. You aren't just talking about the mythology of a group long gone. Your talking about cherished literature of a culture still very much alive and living among you.

How would you like me to label the things and people that you love with the same word. The difference between me and you is I wouldn't do that.

10

Biblical gems

by venus in

though the trunk, branches and even most of the leaves of the bible tree make no sense, there are some leaves here and there which are like gems of high value, such as:.

1) “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” often mistaken as the law of retaliation is actually a beautiful foundation of a perfect judicial system because behind the details the essence is that any loss caused should perfectly and proportionately be compensated.

original writing of this law and its context are not relevant because jesus described them as those being orally transmitted (which makes random additions possible), not written (mathew 5:38-42).

David_Jay

Actually, the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" from Torah is interpreted the opposite by Jews as it is by Christians, which as a Jew is very odd to me.

Christians tend to see it as a "compensation" law, a "retaliation" permission system, or worse--a law permitting capital punishment such as the death penalty.

Jewish law is designed with a complexity often poo-pooed by Christians, as if the Jews don't know what they were writing about when we wrote it and that Gentile Christians, foreign to our culture and language know far better.

This law, in combination with others, has led Israel to outlaw capital punishment, retaliation, revenge, etc. Through the study of Torah, Jews have learned as it is written in the Mishnah: "Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world." --Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5.

As for that Psalm in Hebrew, it reads:

"So inherently sinful I am, that with sin my mother brought me fourth."

The psalmist was not saying he was born "in sin" as Judaism does not hold to the view of Christianity and it's Original Sin doctrine. Instead he was poetically speaking of how deeply he felt guilty of sin. So great it was that he felt it was inherent, as if his mother conceived him not in a womb but in sin itself.

The term "with" can mean "in" but in English that makes people think of Original Sin instead of sin being a stand-in for the womb as it does in the Hebrew.

You are all reading it wrong, as if the Jewish composer was a Christian who accepted the Catholic teaching of Original Sin. It is "in sin my mother conceived me" as opposed to "in the womb my mother conceived me."

33

The Creation of Jesus

by berrygerry in

seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

so, what was jesus?.

David_Jay

Ruby 456,

To some extent you are absolutely correct.

But the discussion is limited to the idioms of the expressions of the narratives. There is a methodology called philology that governs how far we can go with ancient language applications, and it even effects the etymology of the words involved.

That "wide semantic range" you talked about is not possible here. The author of the gospel of John is speaking of the Jewish Messiah and his relationship to the God of Abraham. At the time of composition the writer still thought of himself as a Jew, but had new concepts in mind due to how Paul had brought changes to Christianity. It appears, some scholars say, that Jewish Christians did not agree or at least struggled with these Pauline views. The author of John seems to have an agenda to set some matters straight.

Without Jewish words for incarnation, and with no intention to counter the Shema, the author composed the verses in the language of the Septuagint, following the pattern of Genesis in that translation. EN ARKHE are the first words there too, a translation of the Hebrew BERESHIT, which means "where."

So according to the methodology of philology, we cannot say that any other concepts of "beginning" or "before time" apply. They weren't part of the original material.

We cannot use them for any critical analytical translation or discussion. Critical methodologies make no room for such things. There are strict limits to critical thinking. Critical thinking employs the scientific method, and this method doesn't allow for just random thought that can be anything. It's a very strict method. It's a very strict discipline.

I can't help at this moment to comment on how surprised I am. I have read constantly from posters everywhere on this forum how they state they are critical thinkers. Yet, how is it I am introducing philology into this discussion?

You people do know that you have to formally study critical analytical methodology (called "forensics") in a school environment, right? You have to go to college or some school to study forensics and have a teacher or instructor. You can't learn it on the Internet. When you were all saying you were critical thinkers I thought you had formal training in forensic methods. Am I missing something?

33

The Creation of Jesus

by berrygerry in

seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

so, what was jesus?.

David_Jay

Wonderment is correct.

Also, Freeman, you are making a very limited argument from authority. That is known as a "logical fallacy."

Critical thinking requires that the critical analytical answer be accepted, not the one that comes from someone just because they are a scholar of specialist.

This methodology requires that the argument be tested by disinterested parties to ensure that the results are not biased. Once sufficient, disinterested parties have done so and their results have been published and accepted academically, the critical results can be accepted on their own validity as nominal.

Also, Greek is quite easy to learn. It takes about a year of college level study to be able to read the New Testament text freely. The Greek Orthodox send their children to Greek school were they learn Koine Greek so as to follow along with their Sunday Liturgy. By the time they are 12 or 13 they can read the Scriptures and the Liturgy in Koine Greek unaided. The results are similar for Biblical Hebrew among Jews.

These languages are not hard. I've been using them, praying in them since I was a boy, even while I was a JW. I am 50 now. Yes, Christians tend to argue over nuances, but they really are quite simple.

I pray and read in Hebrew four times or more everyday. Scholars and Christian clergy have come to me asking for help in translation work over then years. The idea that these languages are the property of scholars only is poppycock!

If you haven't learned, it's because some Christian scholars want to keep you in the dark. If Jewish children learn the Shema in Hebrew by age 5, then it's a fallacy of selfish clergy and Christian academics who purposefully keep people confused by the minute details so they have to rely on them and pay them for their Bible translations.

Christians should be just as equipped as Jews, to read both Hebrew and Greek from infancy like we are so they don't have to rely on scholars or translations to read the Bible. I don't understand why your scholars and clergy and elders won't do such an easy work for you.

33

The Creation of Jesus

by berrygerry in

seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

so, what was jesus?.

David_Jay

As I said in a previous post, I don't like to debate anymore, but if you so desire, Dr. White does like to both teach and debate and does so all the time, often televised or recorded. And unlike me he is an excellent teacher. He can be reached at Alpha & Omega Ministries. I hope that helps.
Freeman

How do you know Dr White is correct?

I on the other hand am Jewish. I don't even believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah. I have no invested interest in any set conclusions as Dr White does. You value his word and recommend him to a Jew, why? To proselytize a Jew? Because Dr White supports your argument? Because academia is behind Dr White?

Again, I have no investment in Christianity. I only know Koine Greek well enough to help and do know what mainstream academia teaches. I didn't offer my opinion and have no interest in having some Christian ministry attempt to proselytize me away from my culture, way of life, people, land, or religion.

I was only offering some objective assistance.

33

The Creation of Jesus

by berrygerry in

seeing a trinity thread.. can a jw apologist explain what (not who) is jesus?.

prior to the creation of everything 13.7 billion years ago (draw close book), jehovah created jesus as his firstborn, his only-begotten.. there was nothing else - no stars, no dust, no matter - just jehovah - and then, just jehovah and jesus.

so, what was jesus?.

David_Jay

Sorry, had to go and come back. So before I forget:

This Word fellow is just as old as the Jehovah fellow and both of them are older then dirt!

Actually this isn't what is being said in John 1:1.

KAI HO LOGOS EEN HO PROS TON THEON KAI THEOS EEN HO LOGOS

"...and the Word was set towards God, and God was the Word."

Or, "and the Word was coming up to the side [rib] of God, and God it was."

In Genesis chapter 2, the Hebrew word for Adam's rib literally means "side" as in a building's side wall. The Greek word PROS in this sentence describes a motion, meaning to comes to God's side, not merely to be with, to move towards God as to become one with God as Adam did with his wife.

This explains the last part which Jehovah's Witnesses find unacceptable: "...and God was the Word."

The verse is attesting that Jewish monotheism has not been abandoned in Christology. In fact, it would not be until the 4th century. The only difference during John's day is that Jesus was now identified with God as God's Incarnation.

Again the age of Jesus is not being spoken of here. It is the nature of Jesus and his identification with God. There is no time factor in these words.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay