Posts by Bobcat

14

Star Trek fans

by irondork in

jw
friends

breaking: official synopsis for star trek into darkness revealed november 26, 2012by anthony pascale , filed under: star trek into darkness , trackback.

today the 2013 star trek: into darkness movie took another big step forward.

paramount pictures issued the official approved synopsis for the film, which reveals some details about the plot.

Bobcat

Yea i didnt like the wording either

The writer is suffering from Thripshaw's Disease. See the first 1:30 minutes of this clip.

7

Nobody is quite as mean as people being mean for Jesus.

by jam in

what a powerful statement.

the rev.

c. welton gabby.

Bobcat

And in line with this thread and just in case Breakfast of Champions is reading:

The Spanish Inquisition

20

By what name should Christ's followers be known?

by The Searcher in

at isaiah 43:12, jehovah said to his fleshly nation of israel, "you are my witnesses.

" after christ's death, the literal jewish nation was cast off as god's chosen people, (matt.

21:43) and jehovah now allowed gentiles to join those jews who accepted christ as the messiah, to become part of the 'israel of god'.

DO THE Governing Body fit the criteria for FDS ?

by Phizzy in

from jw.org report of 2012 a.g.m :.

"the evidence points to the following conclusion: "the faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over jesus' domestics in 1919. that slave is the small, composite group of anointed brothers serving at world headquarters during christ's presence who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food.

when this group work together as the governing body, they act as "the faithful and discreet slave."".

Bobcat

BoC:

Yes.

I mean NO! AAAAaaaarrggghh!!!!

[cast into the River of Eternal Peril]

That rates as one of the funniest movies to me. And all the while King Author is counting, "1, 2, 5" ("no, three sir")

7

Nobody is quite as mean as people being mean for Jesus.

by jam in

what a powerful statement.

the rev.

c. welton gabby.

Bobcat

Jesus expressed a thought similar to the title of this thread:

(John 16:2, 3) . . .In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills YOU will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God. 3 But they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father or me.

But as Jesus pointed out, it was because of 'not knowing him' (or his Father), rather than being like him (or them).

Nevertheless, it is a curious situation, that the very followers (or claiming to be) would have such an reverse character to themselves in contrast to the one they claim to follow. I wonder if there is a psycological name for that sort of reverse character phenomenon?

317

Does God's foreknowledge take away from free will?

by Christ Alone in

just by knowing what will happen, that doesn't mean that we can prevent or cause something to happen.

my knowing that does not prevent them the free will of making the choice.. it's the same with god.

if god is not restricted to existence in the present, then the future is known by god because god indwells the future as well as the present and the past.

Bobcat

EP:

So God guesses? There is a chance he could guess wrong?

When I used the term, "guess," I wasn't intending any derogatory meaning. To me, a prediction based on a probability would technically be a "guess." I 'guess' this is another example where "semantics" makes for some difficulty in communication. (Although, I did qualify "guess" with "intelligent.")

And yes, a prediction, based on a probability, could be wrong. That is the heart of the "Heizenberg Uncertainty Principle."

I would "guess" that the one making the prediction, if he had a reputation to maintain, would weigh out the possible cost to his reputation before deciding to make the prediction. Or, he might use whatever means are at his disposal to make sure the prediction comes true.

Interestingly, the first atomic device was detonated near Alamagordo(?) with the scientists knowing that there was a small percentage possibility that the explosion would be much bigger than it turned out to be - with dire consequences to the earth. The detonation amounted to a prediction, based on a probability.

By the way, I hope you don't think I was holding any derogatory views towards you. I just found the idea in this discussion very intellectually stimulating. The lunch example included you simply as a convenience, nothing else.

Take Care

317

Does God's foreknowledge take away from free will?

by Christ Alone in

just by knowing what will happen, that doesn't mean that we can prevent or cause something to happen.

my knowing that does not prevent them the free will of making the choice.. it's the same with god.

if god is not restricted to existence in the present, then the future is known by god because god indwells the future as well as the present and the past.

Bobcat

PS:

Thanks for that bit of history!

Take Care

16

DO THE Governing Body fit the criteria for FDS ?

by Phizzy in

from jw.org report of 2012 a.g.m :.

"the evidence points to the following conclusion: "the faithful and discreet slave" was appointed over jesus' domestics in 1919. that slave is the small, composite group of anointed brothers serving at world headquarters during christ's presence who are directly involved in preparing and dispensing spiritual food.

when this group work together as the governing body, they act as "the faithful and discreet slave."".

Bobcat

This is typical WT fare:

"The evidence points to the following conclusion:"

"All the relevant facts argue that . . . "

"The facts of history unmistakenly reveal that . . . "

Of course, no facts are ever presented. Just the statement that any facts worth considering point to whatever conclusion the Society has arrived at. If you, or anyone else, reach a different conclusion, it was because of using "facts" that were of no value.

This is propaganda at its practiced best!

20

By what name should Christ's followers be known?

by The Searcher in

at isaiah 43:12, jehovah said to his fleshly nation of israel, "you are my witnesses.

" after christ's death, the literal jewish nation was cast off as god's chosen people, (matt.

21:43) and jehovah now allowed gentiles to join those jews who accepted christ as the messiah, to become part of the 'israel of god'.

Bobcat

The controversy, if you can call it that, about the name "Christian" revovles around the verb rendered, "were by divine providence called" in the NWT. Most translations render it, "were called," "were . . . given," "were named."

Concerning that verb and the name "Christians," Barnes Notes on the Bible (copied from e-Sword) says:

And the disciples were called Christians ... - As this became the distinguishing name of the followers of Christ, it was worthy of record. The name was evidently given because they were the followers of Christ. But by whom, or with what views it was given, is not certainly known. Whether it was given by their enemies in derision, as the names Puritan, Quaker, Methodist, etc., have been; or whether the disciples assumed it themselves, or whether it was given by divine intimation, has been a matter of debate. That it was given in derision is not probable, for in the name "Christian" there was nothing dishonorable. To be the professed friends of the Messiah, or the Christ, was not with Jews a matter of reproach, for they all professed to be the friends of the Messiah. The cause of reproach with the disciples was that they regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah; and hence, when their enemies wished to speak of them with contempt, they would speak of them as Galileans Act 2:7, or as Nazarenes Act 24:5, "And a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." It is possible that the name might have been given to them as a mere appellation, without intending to convey by it any reproach. The Gentiles would probably use this name to distinguish them, and it might have become thus the common appellation. It is evident from the New Testament, I think, that it was not designed as a term of reproach. It occurs but twice elsewhere: Act 26:28, "Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian"; 1Pe 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed." No certain argument can be drawn in regard to the source of the name from the word which is used here.

The word used here, and translated "were called" - χρηματι´ζω chrematizo - means: (1) To transact any business; to be employed in accomplishing anything, etc. This is its usual signification in the Greek writers. (2) to be divinely admonished, to be instructed by a divine communication, etc., Mat 2:12; Luk 2:26; Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; Heb 11:7; Heb 12:25.(3) to be named, or called, in any way, without a divine communication, Rom 7:3, "She shall be called an adulteress." It cannot be denied, however, that the most usual signification in the New Testament is that of a divine monition, or communication; and it is certainly possible that the name was given by Barnabas and Saul. I recline to the opinion, however, that it was given to them by the Gentiles who were there, simply as an appellation, without intending it as a name of reproach; and that it was readily assumed by the disciples as a name that would fitly designate them. If it had been assumed by them, or if Barnabas and Saul had conferred the name, the record would probably have been to this effect; not simply that they "were called," but that they took this name, or that it was given by the apostles. It is, however, of little consequence whence the name originated. It soon became a name of reproach, and has usually been in all ages since, by the wicked, the frivolous, the licentious, and the ungodly.

So was it simply an appellation from outsiders or by "divine providence"? Fact is, it could have been both. The reasoning Barnes uses above is sound and similar to what other commentaries generally use - except for the WT.

The Society's commentary on Acts simply says, "It was first in Antioch that "the disciples were by divine providence called Christians." (Acts 11:26b) That God-approved name aptly describes those whose way of life is modeled on that of Christ." (bt chap.9 p.74 par.22)

Regardless of the origin, what is really interesting with regard to the Society is that this first happened in Antioch, far away from the direction of any so-called Governing Body. Even if it were Paul and Barnabas that coined the name, how dare they act without consulting the GB in Jerusalem! I can see why the Society's commentary on Acts makes short mention of it and moves on.

The term "Jehovah's Witnesses," regardless of any claim of Biblical backing, serves more as a trademark. And the baptism questions link the budding disciple with that trademark, rather than with "Christian," which the Society can't trademark. And DFing is from that trademark, as the Society can't DF someone from Christianity, since they don't own the name.

Take Care (and greetings Searcher!)

317

Does God's foreknowledge take away from free will?

by Christ Alone in

just by knowing what will happen, that doesn't mean that we can prevent or cause something to happen.

my knowing that does not prevent them the free will of making the choice.. it's the same with god.

if god is not restricted to existence in the present, then the future is known by god because god indwells the future as well as the present and the past.

Bobcat

PS:

After reading your most recent posts, I can see how "semantics" could make it difficult to evenly discuss this topic.

For example, take a roll of the dice. There are only 6 possible variations of outcomes. So, before it is rolled, you already know every possible outcome of a roll.

Does knowing that the outcome will be between 1 and 6 constitute foreknowledge? I could see where one person might say 'yes,' and another might say that true foreknowledge requires knowing the specific number that shows up after the roll.

My feeling about that is that both sides of that question are involved. Or, to put it another way, both points of view are, in fact, the same point of view. In the case of a die (dice?), the fact that it has 6 numbered sides is just one of that object's characteristics. If that is the only characteristic that you are familiar with, then, your ability to foreknow the result is limited to knowing that a roll could produce anywhere from 1 to 6.

If you could know how it's molecular weight was distributed throughout the cube, then, you could begin to weight the probabilities of which number was more likely to show up as compared to any of the other numbers. That additional knowledge increases your ability to foreknow.

Using this as a basis, then, the amount of one's knowledge and/or understanding directly relates to his/her ability to foreknow the future. Weather forecasters might be another good example. As their equipment and experience improves, their forecasting improves.

Transferring that to God, if he "knows all things," then, His foreknowledge should be total - unless, He has inserted random elements into His universe. In which case, His foreknowledge would have to be something less-than-total.

Incidentally, in Bryan Green's book "The Elegant Universe" (or it might have been "The Fabric of the Cosmos," I can't remember which off hand), but he posits that if someone could know the state of every particle in the universe, he would also know the future. He wasn't trying to describe God, but I thought it was interesting his tying of present knowledge to the ability to see the future.

I think some people would view "foreknowledge" as a seperate skill, unrelated to any other abilities, so that God can foresee anything, at will, regardless of any other factors. But I don't see it that way. But I do see the future as always related to the present. (Compare Gal 6:7)

At any rate, thanks for putting up with my ramblings.

Take care