Posts by TheWonderofYou

The renascent religion that is now taking shape, it seems, had no founder; itpoints to no origins.
God The Invisible King Herbert George Wells
Wells wrote in his book God the Invisible King (1917) that his idea of God did not draw upon the traditional religions of the world:
"This book sets out as forcibly and exactly as possible the religious belief of the writer. [Which] is a profound belief in a personal and intimate God. ... Putting the leading idea of this book very roughly, these two antagonistic typical conceptions of God may be best contrasted by speaking of one of them as God-as-Nature or the Creator, and of the other as God-as-Christ or the Redeemer. One is the great Outward God; the other is the Inmost God. The first idea was perhaps developed most highly and completely in the God of Spinoza. It is a conception of God tending to pantheism, to an idea of a comprehensive God as ruling with justice rather than affection, to a conception of aloofness and awestriking worshipfulness. The second idea, which is opposed to this idea of an absolute God, is the God of the human heart. The writer would suggest that the great outline of the theological struggles of that phase of civilisation and world unity which produced Christianity, was a persistent but unsuccessful attempt to get these two different ideas of God into one focus."[96]
Later in the work he aligns himself with a "renascent or modern religion ... neither atheist nor Buddhist nor Mohammedan nor Christian ... [that] he has found growing up in himself".[97]

Some fearful Faustian compact had taken place.
-- Lawrence Durrell, "The Unspeakable Attaché," Stiff Upper Lip, 1958

Word of the day 31.3.2017
I feel the Weltschmerz about Jehovahs witnesses,
... i dont footle at all guys my word is not a platitude or plisky.

The species of this genus may be better known by the margaritaceous or pearly hues of their delicate mostly yellow, or pale straw-colored wings, which are in general rather faintly streaked with transverse lines ...
-- James Francis Stephens, Illustrations of British Entomology, 1834

20

Interesting take on John 3:16

by NikL in

the superstar of all scriptures.

for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.. .

but i just learned something about it.. i try to look at different translations of the bible and the lexham english bible words it a bit different.... 16 for in this way god loved the world, so that he gave his one and only son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

TheWonderofYou

or "and just as Moses lifted up" ...thus it is necessary that" --- the consequence of a strict analogy

____________

VERSES 16-17

____________

Interesting is also the ending Verses 16-17

According to the testimony of verses 16-17, the merciful, graceful God wants the good, indeed the best, the salvation for all men through Jesus (δι 'αὐτοῦ).

The intention for the classical mission and judgment terminology is emphaysized by the rhetorical stylistic means of correction μὴ / οὐ - ἀλλά, in verses 16c-d.17a.c:

not should perish -- but might have eternal life;

Not sent the Son of God into the world to judge ---- but to save them.

Because of the [...] loving act of God, the above mentioned reason, conceived as a mission of the Son, the traditional balance of perish and life, from judgment and rescue comes out of balance" (Kohler, 260).

20

Interesting take on John 3:16

by NikL in

the superstar of all scriptures.

for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.. .

but i just learned something about it.. i try to look at different translations of the bible and the lexham english bible words it a bit different.... 16 for in this way god loved the world, so that he gave his one and only son, in order that everyone who believes in him will not perish, but will have eternal life.

TheWonderofYou

The love of God to mankind / to the world is the reason (vv. 16a: γὰρ) for God to give his .... unique son, the Son of man, Jesus for man - pro nobis (V. 16b: ἔδωκεν, see also the verbum compositum παραδίδωμι in the context of Jesus handing over to Judas Iscariot in 6:44, 71; 12.4; 13.2.11.21; 18.2.5; 21,20).
(Source: perikopen.de)

16 Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον

Its indeed this manner of love which is given here as the reason for the act of giving his son.

The uplifted snake is only used as intentional typological analogy it is not the reason that jesus had to be lifted up. There the gospelwriter used the term "even as" or "thus"

Verse 14 recites Num 21,8-9.11 in the sense of a typological comparison
(V. 14a: καθὼς - v. 14b: οὕτως). This is "not a Moses-typology" (Sabbe,166), but by the parallel verb ὑψόω in v. 14a.b is the act of elevation is an intentional allusion by the fourth evangelist.

Once upon a time the bronze serpent for the salvation of the people in the desert of Moses was attached to a stake and erected. This act corresponds to the Son of Man (vv. 13c.14b) Jesus by being fixed and erected on the cross (cf. 19, 16-38). The auxiliary verb δεῖ in verse 14b (see also 12,34; 20,8) also underlines this to elevate / elevate as a "divine activity" within the framework of God's planful action." Just God can be the subject of an elevation process "(Sabbe, 167). The one elevated by God is thus the crucified.

The action of God in the Verses 14.16a-b.17a intend the (eternal) life (vv. 15.16d) for all who believe in Jesus (vv. 15.16c).

The action of God is called threefold:

1 . as the elevation of man and God , Analogy to the brazen serpent (v. 14),

2. as an act of love for men / to the world (vv 16a.17a.b.c) because of the gift of his Son (v. 16b) and

3. the sending of the Son of God into the world (v. 17a).

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

TheWonderofYou

stavro.
... "But Jesus still had to die before God would accept his blood "...

Did all the animals and Jesus really have to die in order to get to the gem - the blood of dying and slaughtered (not dead) bodies?

Had blood of dying+slaughtered bodies actually to be collected to serve in an act of divine vicarious punishment or was it in an act of korban (coming closer to god)?

Was the death of Jesus body itself actually meaningless and worthless and was it only the fresh pouring out uncovered blood of his dying (slaughtered) body [not yet dead but in the moment of slaughter] which saves and redeems ?

Was it the blood after the occured death of Jesus that redeems or was it the fresh pouring out blood in the moment of Jesus slaughter death (like at slaughter of animals)?

Or doesnt "blood" stand after all for "life" or "value of life" or yet better doesnt blood mean ourself or Jesus whole person, the value and worth of our/his person standing in front of the altar?

3

Blood as the seat of life: The blood paradox among Afro-christians.

by TheWonderofYou in

i find this an interesting read.. https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/perc.2016.14.issue-1/perc-2016-0003/perc-2016-0003.pdf.

TheWonderofYou

I find this an interesting read.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/perc.2016.14.issue-1/perc-2016-0003/perc-2016-0003.pdf

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

TheWonderofYou

Behind the ethical message of blood in the jewish notion and in the law of holiness in Leviticus we have the ancient, archaic idea that blood is seat of the human soul or life force.

The core ethical message of blood was that blood was the essence of life, its vitality and energy, which has to be devoted to serving as offering (korban) under the altar to God (Hashem as they call God) and its consequence that under this leading sign the best of human life, its vitality and energy, should be also devoted in humilty into the right direction, namely to god (life belongs only under the altar, namely as offering for god).

This ethical core thought is an interesting though and acceptable moral idea per se. Also because blood is not seen under the altar as "sacrifice", "ransom", or "payment for guilts" although it might have been used in such circumstances, but only as "offering"/"gift". Therefore the human blood of Jesus could in jewish notion never pay for adamic sins in a real "ransom" scenario, but only serve as "offering" at most. Paul must have been used the word "ransom" as metaphor i think.

This ethical core thought that blood is lifeforce could however lead to the conclusion that in jewish eyes "blood was" always "sacred" and not only in the moment of killing an animal.

These notions developped on the basis of the jewish shy from contact with blood. Blood was for the Israelites not merely used as a methaphor or symbol of life but they had ...brrrr.... great shy of contacting it. This is the archaic story behind blood with the blood rites uuuuh and menstruation blood uuuuuhhhh, today we know that not everything what the old folks spoke is to hold and search for a double meaning, deeper sense, namely also for the idea that life or lifeforce or the divine principle is actually seated in the blood, a lifeforce which is of divine origin and therefore belonged to God.

Today the JW are confused and trouble their head about this old idea and make of it a STARK NONSENSE.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

TheWonderofYou

"Blood was sacred under The Law." - "Blood is not intrinsically sacred; it is only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken."

Although I came often to similar ideas, and although i would like that this is a means of escape for a JW to accept blood transfusion, doesnt it sound very unlikely and illogical that a Jew would ever say that.

Would a Jew really say "animal blood is sacred, says the law" [Leviticus 17 is part of the laws of holniness] and would he explain this sacredness further as follows "sacredness means that blood is only sacred if I kill an animal, cause if I kill the animal it represents only then the life of the animal taken".

I think (as far as I know the matter) that something doesnt meat up to the desired conclusion.

I dont know what yet exactly, however I think that it is not so easy to say, that blood is only then sacred when it is used as a means for the offering and only then bears the "quality as offering" in it, in the moment of death.

----

I have read that the rabbis understood blood as the most living or spiritual part of human physical existence. For the rabbis it came the closest to the idea of soul or life itself. Blood was for a jew a sign of life.

In jewish thinking the Lord turned flesh and blood into a nephesh chayyah, a living being. Blood was the seat of life. So in hebrew language and notion the blood had the even closest connection to the divine, or spiritual part of men, its nephesh, the life. It was seen as intermediary between a spiritual reality and physical reality, the bones, the sinews and flesh. Because that was in jewish understanding the nature of the blood, therefore blood was seen as that part of the human body to which the soul, the life attaches itself to.

Therefore, if blood was seen as seat of life the "sacredness of blood" meant for a Jew supposedly much more than a "only sacred insofar as it represents a life that has been taken".

Leviticus 17-26 is called the law of holiness. The Law of Holiness was a milestone in the Israelite history of law. The speciality of this laws was that obidience to the law was bound to the basic quality of holiness. The understanding blood was part of this Law of Holiness.

The Tora was the holy scripture of Jews for Jesus and the original church. It was the only bible to which they could refer. Although christians held tight to the first testament writings they were subordinated to the work of the holy spirit.

From the apostolic council onwards for christians was valid what the holy spirit declared as "clean". What the spirit declared as clean the church should not declare as unclean, even appeling to the holy scriptures. (Acts 10, Peters dream)

Therefore for Christians the Israelite Law of Holiness, e.g. the rules for ritual and cultic purity and as well the interpretation of the deeper meaning of blood, is only relative for christians, it was a law for Israel, and are to be understood under the circumstances of the work of the holy spirit.

The jewish background and understanding of blood as seat of life and mediator between the divine and the flesh is for christans not binding. These ideas and notions were only relevant in connection with the Law of Holiness and were relevant for jewish-christians.

For other christians and other nations the jewish rabbis have been always discussing ethic rules they should follow to be acceptable for god. In the traditional noachidic laws contains 6 bans and 1 rule (this a theoratical draft but not a concrete Halakha) forbidden was only to eat parts of living animal, to avoid a brutal killing

Bans

Do not deny God

Do not blaspheme God.

Do not murder. (spilling of blood)

Do not engage in illicit sexual relations.

Do not steal.

Do not eat from a live animal.

Rule:
Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to said laws.

556

The Watchtower are Right About Blood...

by cofty in

... but, they fail to take note of one important detail.. i believe that if we are going to have any chance of reasoning with a jw about blood, this is the place we need to begin.. don't try to convince them that it was only a dietary law.

it wasn't, and they will never go along with it.. don't tell them that saving a life is more important than obeying a law, even a seemingly trivial one.

they take pride in obedience.

TheWonderofYou

Found this talk by Rabbi Mendel Kaplan about the jewish background of the "The Baffling Blood Ban"

Altough the jewish organisation Chabad is called a dangerous jewish cult and quite extreme in many aspects I think this talk about blood is very interesting, to understand jewish idea of blood ban. Blood is hebrew "dam"

http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/3317454/jewish/The-Baffling-Bloody-Ban.htm

38

Anthony Morris - The Higher Education Broadcast

by pale.emperor in

last night i had jw broadcasting on in the background while i was working, i like to keep up to date with their crap.

which is strange because when i actually was a jw i hated reading or watching their material.. anyway, on the streaming section, anthony morris comes on screen telling me that higher education is bad and "the better the university, the greater the danger".

i never would have believed it if i hadn't seen him say it myself.

TheWonderofYou

"Jehovah's people are the THINKINGEST people on earth"

hahaha, thinking 1000 times about the same matter with the same result is rather repetition and hammering into than THINKING. As there is only one thought allowed - we are always right - all facets of thinking allowed are concentrating on repeating the own dogmatism simply from different standpoints.