Posts by David

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

And lastly, Fisherman, if I wanted to, there would have been a much easier way for me, a Jewish man, to have given you an answer.

Jews, as you know, don't accept Jesus as Messiah. We don't hold him as a prophet. We do not view the Gospels of any of the Christian Scriptures as inspired. So, instead of going out of my way to be objective and give an academic answer I could have merely said:

"Jesus is not the Messiah or a prophet, so there is no reason to believe what he said."

I didn't. I left my personal beliefs out of things. I merely cited what Christian scholars teach. They hold Jesus as Messiah, as a prophet, as someone who foretold many things, but they don't see things as Jehovah's Witnesses do. They are not naive. Still they remain faithful without having to have things play out so black-and-white as you seem to demand. That, to me, is real faithfulness. I admire that in them.

You, on the other hand, said that if it wasn't as prophetic as you excepted that you might as well toss it away. That shows how shallow you are about Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus has to fit your view of him or he goes into the garbage too. Interesting.

But again, the simplest answer from me could have been to abandon it all because Jesus isn't Messiah. But notice, I didn't do that. For you see, I can be objective. I can forget what I believe, leave my opinion and convictions behind and give replies that are fair and informative, even if they don't reflect my personal belief. To me the truth matters, even if I don't subscribe to it.

Now, I'm tired of talking to you. A great thing about forums is I can move on and ignore you, which is what I am doing at the moment. I'm sure you haven't the self-control to not reply back and do the same.

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,

I answered your question. These texts are originally Marcan.

For those unaware what happened earlier in this thread, Fisherman's first post involved a quote from Jesus' conversation with the Pharisees regarding the nature of the Kingdom of God. It is found at Luke 17:20-37. Note that Fisherman only quoted verses 29-31 and offered no citations or contextual background.

All mainstream textual scholars agree that Luke added verses 22-32 into the conversation from Marcan sources. To illustrate.

According to the 100 plus scholars who worked on the official United States Catholic Bible, the NABRE, the footnote to these verses state:

Luke has also appended further traditional sayings of Jesus about the unpredictable suddenness of the day of the Son of Man, and assures his readers that in spite of the delay of that day..., it will bring judgment unexpectedly on those who do not continue to be vigilant.--Italics added.

It isn't that scholars aren't saying that Jesus never said these things, but that Jesus never made this prediction at this time. This is a Lucan addition made to condemn the Pharisees, and by extension the Jews due to this anti-Jewish sentiment the early Church had toward their Hebrew brethren.

Luke was trying to state that Jesus was predicting judgments specifically upon the non-Christian Jews, but as scholars point out, the shift in wording is clearly lifted from Marcan vocabulary. Luke was a Greek and wrote very differently.

I stated all this already, but used different sources. The conclusions are still the same. I have definitely stayed in point and definitely replied to your post.

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

I never diverted from the subject of the Second Coming. Go back over my posts and ask anyone here if I have been diverting from the subject.

As for you not making rules, you wrote:

If you can't think in those terms, you should recuse yourself from trying to answer my question.

Not only did you set rules for how you wanted me to write, you here admit, in your own words, that I indeed was offering an answer.

The only problem is that you don't like the answer I gave, not that I didn't give an answer.

And setting terms or parameters for answers is setting "rules."

You, Fisherman, are lying. I don't appreciate liars.

Now, back to the theme. I won't spend another moment discussing anything that doesn't have to with the subject matter, like Fisherman's Watchtower brand peanut butter sandwiches.

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

Ruby456,

Here is a starter list. There is more I could supply, but this should suffice. You can look up the verses in question in these volumes.

1. The Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha (NRSV)

2. The Oxford Catholic Study Bible, NABRE

3. The Common English Bible, Study Edition

4. The Collegeville Commentary Series

5. The Jewish Annotated New Testament, NRSV

6. The Jerusalem Bible, with footnotes

7. The New Jerusalem Bible, with footnotes

8. The Jewish Study Bible with NJPS text

As to the time issue, the answer is still no in regards to John 1:1. The Greek words don't have any meaning of eternity as currently understood by Christians. While Hellenistic thinking was prevailing, this was not formulated and applied to Christology until the Arian challenge, far long after John had been written.

The critical notes in the above works should suffice to help explain more.

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

Thanks, dubstepped, for filling me in. I appreciate it.

And if you like rules, Fisherman, here are some I expect of you: have real open and critical discussion when you are around me, leave your personal beliefs and opinions at the door, and be prepared to have your comments tested by disinterested parties as anyone does in any critical method. And if you say you're a critical thinker, then you had better have taken a course or two in forensic methodology and/or speaking, because you cannot teach it to youself--otherwise you'll get smashed and slashed with your own words by someone who has. I have had three years of formal training in forensic and critical methodology.

That's the way it's done in the real world of Biblical scholarship. If you can't run with the big dogs, then you have no right to be setting rules in the first place, Fisherman.

And theses aren't warnings. It's a list of guarantees.

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

My posts came from Christian academic and scholarly sources, even citing the Pontifical Vatican Council at one point and linking to an official 2015 document.

I offered sound, critical work that came not from personal opinion (as again I am Jewish) but from mainstream Christianity!

This isn't your thread. You don't make the rules. I was following the sound rules of critical methodology, not bending to what you like or posting answers that only you prefer to hear.

Besides, if I am the first person you've ever heard this from, that the Final Mount Olivet Discourse is not believed by scholars, clergy, theologians, and mainstream Christianity to be as prophetic as it reads in the Bible, then you have only yourself to be angry with. It means you have never cracked an academically sound book of Biblical exegesis in your life.

I am not going to think in close-minded terms. I formally studied Biblical philology, New Testament textual transmission, Koine Greek etymology, Christological Exegetical Hermeneutics, in addition to my Hebrew and Jewish studies. I worked as a translator for a bishop who was a member of the USCCB, and worked on a project translating the Hebrew text of Tobit from the Dead Sea Scrolls in 2010. I am not here answering posts on whimsical feelings to just please people, but based on the best and latest scholarly information that I know is available.

Frankly, I couldn't care less what you consider the gospels to be. I am well studied. I was presenting the best data for everybody to read so they would have it. I wasn't writing for the benefit of just one person or merely to counter you. To me the only thing that matters is setting the matter straight with the most objective reply I can give.

Again, this is not your thread or forum. Anyone can answer your questions. If you don't want people to write replies, don't post anything in the first place.

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

That's not how the Church defines inspiration.

In Christian terms, inspiration involves everything God wanted the writer to say, but also does not prevent the writer from including concepts that are dictated by the confines of human nature and the limitations of culture and the period in which the author lived.

For instance, the authors of the New Testament tend to write of seizures as demonic possession. Was it really demonic forces causing the humans to suffer or were these seizures that Jesus was curing?--Compare Mark 9:20-27.

The only reason epileptic episodes are called "seizures" is because ancient cultures believed spirits were seizing control of people and causing them to act this way. The description of epileptic episodes in the gospel Scriptures matches in vocabulary the way they are described in other first century literature.

Most agree that Jesus was curing seizures, not actually performing exorcisms in these particular cases that are described like this. This type of limited composition does not invalidate the value of the inspired work in the eyes of Christianity, nevertheless. No actual demons were involved, but that was due merely to the way people spoke of seizures back then. The cures, teaches the Church, were still authentic, it claims, even if the descriptions are faulty based on first century limitations.

This goes for the Final Discourse on Mount Olivet. It was a discourse perhaps about judgment upon Israel but due to anti-Jewish sentiments in the Church, became colored as something else.

You may think it garbage, but the Church does not. It can see past the human limitations to the truths of Jesus to see warnings about never thinking that what you have with God is permanent just because it's a temple or some deep understanding. It can all come tumbling down and change in a minute, and because you are not ready, your world can end and you with it!

I'm a Jew, not even a Christian, but I know they (Christians) don't need things to be as exact and literal as you to keep their faith in it. They have yet to call it garbage, yet believe exactly as I wrote. Who do you think I got all that I've posted on this thread from? Not me! It's from the footnotes of the official Catholic Bible of the UK, the Jerusalem Bible, and the USA, the NABRE, and the ecumenical, academic standard NRSV. None of this was my opinion or invention.

These are words of believing Christians, not mine. I am Jewish.

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

Yes it is, thanks. Just in time for Hurricane Irma to blow through too, but I am doing much better. The world is filled with stupid idiots everywhere, it seems.

But I am doing quite well these days, thank you. Hope all is well with you.

Continue to give the idiots hell.

P.S. And, yes...We did evolve (even if some only back into Neanderthals).

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

This is exactly opposite to the situation in the UK.
I have no problem at all with christians preaching here - I just wish they had the courage to follow through on the conversation. The OP has run away as soon as it was pointed out that they had misunderstood their own doctrine.

True, Cofty.

I live in Florida, USA. You can just imagine, I am sure, how hard it is for atheists (and other non-Christians) here.

Just for me, as a Jew, last week during Sukkot, the KKK spread flyers through our neighborhood with horrible illustrations and statements, that ended with: "The only good Jew is a dead Jew."

Some people who leave cults may be especially sensitive and not be prepared for those who prey on others who still feel a void and will join anything to fill it up. I've seen evangelizing vultures pounce upon unprepared people who have just escaped one cult to get sucked into another.

You, I know, can take care of yourself. Heck, if I ever needed help, you would be the first person I would call on. Others are not as lucky or strong as you.

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.

David_Jay

Posts by David_Jay