Posts by Journeyman

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

it's according to his humanity, according to which entered to the divine glory He enjoyed according to his divinity from eternity. Henceforth Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father: "By 'the Father's right hand' we understand the glory and honour of divinity, where he who exists as Son of God before all ages, indeed as God, of one being with the Father, is seated bodily after he became incarnate and his flesh was glorified.

Sorry, but that quote from the Catholic catechism is such convoluted and obscure use of language (the parts in italics especially). I usually find trinitarians are reduced to such obfuscatory language as their conception of the trinity is ultimately not reasonably explicable. "Seated at the right hand of the Father" is such a simple scriptural phrase and illustration of the relationship between the two separate persons of the Father and the Son in the heavens, with one as the 'right hand man' of the other (and therefore slightly lesser in status but acting on his behalf and with his authority), yet it's rendered almost unintelligible by that 'explanation' from the 'wisdom' of the Catholic church. (And incidentally look: no third person seated there with them in the form of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!)

What do you (and they) understand by "divine" and "divinity"?

According to Wikipedia (not always a reliable source admittedly, but it sums up the broad use of this word well): "Divinity or the divine are things that are either related to, devoted to, or proceeding from a deity. What is or is not divine may be loosely defined"

The "divine" can apply to any godlike being or origin, or it can apply specifically only to the one Almighty Creator.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/divinity
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/divinity

What do you (and they) understand by "bodily"? A physical human body? Or a spirit body?

What do you (and they) understand by "incarnate"? That usually refers to a physical, material form.

But flesh cannot be "glorified" (assuming by that one means a human body elevated to heaven) and Jesus cannot be seated at the right hand of God "bodily" in a fleshly sense, if that's what is meant - 1 Corinthians 15:44,50. Philippians 3:21

There is a physical, fleshly body, or there is a spirit non-physical body. Only the latter can enter the heavenly realm, as the scriptures make plain. The angels who forsook their places to have sex with humans in Noah's day could not take their fleshly bodies into the heavens, and nor did Jesus.

Or because these text is not about the Holy Spirit, but about the relation of the Father and the Son. If I talk about my father only in a conversation, it means my mother doesn't exist?

But by the theory of the trinity, the three are co-equal, co-eternal and one in essence, nature, power, action, and will, No humans have such a relationship to one another. So why not even a hint of the presence of the third 'person' in this unity of three-in-one? And this is not the only scripture where there are only two persons - not three - linked in the prominent positions and relationship.
Matthew 11:27 - "no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (but not the Spirit)
etc, etc...

17

July 2023 Study Article 29: Are You Ready for the GT (part 3)

by blondie in

jw
friends

had to take a break to get my chores caught up; last section: strengthen your love.

this implies that any jw had "real" love or knew what it was outside the wts definition.

many jws just perpetuate the type of love they were show in their congregation.

Journeyman

they now have to learn all over again how to act around other JWs that they dislike.

One pioneer I worked with recently for the first time in person after the pandemic said exactly that.
She said she was struggling to cope with having to deal with some of the more 'challenging' members of the congregation since the return to face-to-face meetings and ministry as those ones are now approaching her directly again.

The interesting thing is she is an 'exemplary' sister who has been very involved in giving her time and effort to other sisters in the past, particularly ones who were... difficult to support (you know the type, often complaining about their various sicknesses, always having trouble with one thing and other - what someone said about them, or what a certain scripture means, etc, etc)

She obviously finally had a break from that during lockdown and has realised during that time that she shouldn't have to put up with all that nonsense. It seems her inner person is crying out not to have to take on all that extra stress again! There must be many in that position across the org.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

One might ask, how could Jesus be used by God as his "master worker" in creation, yet not be "greater than the angels"? The point is that the scripture is talking about STATUS and AUTHORITY not work or effort.

To illustrate:

I am a father of several sons. One day, I ask the eldest to join me in constructing a new house for all the family. I provide the materials, and direct his work according to my plans.

However, during this time I do not give him special status or favours - he wears no fancy attire, isn't favoured with better food, more luxurious accommodation, greater wealth or more rights in the household compared to his brothers.

Because he loves me, he is often the first and most vocal to speak in support of me, but I do not conspicuously elevate him above the rest of my children.

However, years later, after he has finished the family house and other activities, he takes on a special mission to travel to a distant land to promote my business. While there, he suffers abuse and in recognition of his work and affection for me I contact the people of that land directly, letting them know I endorse him and he has my full authority to act on my behalf and will inherit my business. However, the people there do not listen and eventually he is deported back to my family's homeland.

As a reward for his considerable efforts and sacrifice, I *then* reward him with extra favour and status in front my family, giving him full inheritance.

Jesus was humbly content to remain just as subject to his Father in the same way as all the (other?) angels UNTIL the point when the Father GAVE him greater authority. This is why Philippians 2:6 says "he did not consider equality with God something to be seized" - he was content, although being a spirit person the same as his Father is, not to try to take equal status with his Father. He was content to stay on the level with the other spirit persons at that time (inferior to, and subject to, the Father), until his Father would elevate him to His right hand in due time.

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

>>> the whole 1st chapter of the Hebrews completely excludes the possibility that the Son is an angel. 1:2 is a clear statement, absolutely fits to the Nicene Creed.

False. One may choose not to believe it, but Hebrews Ch 1 does not "completely exclude the possibility".

v2 - "But in THESE days (eschatou - or these last, final or latter days) he has spoken to us through his Son."

v3 - "he SAT DOWN (kathizo - to sit, be seated, sit down) at the right hand"

v4 - "Thus he BECAME (genomenos - having become) far greater than the angels..."

v5 - "You are my Son, and TODAY (semeron - this day, now) I have given you the honour that goes with that name."

v 13 - "SIT (kathou - to sit, be seated, sit down) at my right hand"

These are not continuous actions, thus indicating a situation where one originally WASN'T in one state or condition, but subsequently BECOMES or DOES those things. That is particularly relevant in verse 2 which explicitly says Jesus "became" far greater than angels - he at one time was not far greater in rank, but was later elevated to higher status by his Father.

The analogy between the two procreations fails in that while a human is the son of his parents according to the flesh, but a creature of God (because human procreation relies on God's creative power), the Son was begotten by the Father, and as such, does not require a separate act of creation.

Again, this is semantic nonsense. God created - He "begat" a son, a son originated from a direct act of His - therefore it was an act of creation.

To "begat" can mean "to bring into being by the process of procreation", but also more broadly "to bring about", "to cause to be" or "to bring forth". It does not only mean to produce in flesh by sexual reproduction. That is the same error of understanding that many Muslims make regarding Jesus being God's Son.
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/beget
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/beget
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/beget

In fact, for those who subscribe to the understanding that the Son assisted God in creating "all other things", then the Son was in fact the only "thing" created entirely by God alone, without him directing the Son as his "master worker". (hence the scriptural term "only-begotten", not simply "begotten").

However, the recognition that the Son was created by God does not require belief in the latter (that the Son assisted in all other creation). The two are not mutually exclusive. Although Hebrews 1:2 is explicit that "through the Son he created the universe", which again makes it clear that God directed and guided Jesus in the creative works.

Oh, and guess what else? Again, in all of those verses in Hebrews 1, no mention of a person called "Holy Spirit". It's all about the relationship between TWO persons. Why? Because the Spirit is not a person!

77

Biden running in 2024 🤣

by LoveUniHateExams in

i've filed this under news and world events, although i could've posted it under entertainment, lol.

apparently, joe biden will be seeking re-election for another term in the white house.. this, despite a recent poll showing that 70% of people don't want him to run again.. biden just has to be the worst president i've seen.

his gaffes, over-relience on a prompter, and, more than any other president, his refusal to answer journalists' questions, all go to make him top of the list in terms of bad presidents.. it will certainly provide entertainment, if nothing else..

Journeyman

Is 'likely responsible' the same as 'guilty'?

To be honest, I struggled with that definition and that choice of words was mine. I originally wrote "guilty" in my opening sentence, but then checking the wording carefully in all the US news outlets in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, they were all using the phrase "liable" and the presenter of the BBC news coverage I watched was very precise about spelling out the difference - because it is a civil case not a criminal one, they were avoiding the term "guilty".

I don't know the exact wording in US statutes, but it's similar to the UK where the criminal standard has to be "proved beyond reasonable doubt" to declare a guilty verdict, whereas civil cases only have to be "on the balance of probabilities" to find against someone.

But of course, while technically in law that may be the case, in practice that's nonsense: if you're found "liable" in a case brought by someone claiming you committed a sexual assault, that's essentially saying you did it. And I notice that now, hours later, more news sources are using the word "guilty" in their headlines. Perhaps they were waiting to double-check with their legal teams first!

Is this genuine, or is it politically-motivated by Trump's many enemies?

I don't know, but one US lawyer and former federal prosecutor that I saw interviewed said that any claim by Trump's legal team to have the verdict declared biased and overturned could be made more difficult given that the jury did not find against him on all counts. They threw out the claim of rape. However, it appears that it came down to them finding Trump a less credible and believable witness than Carroll (not surprisingly, in my view!)

77

Biden running in 2024 🤣

by LoveUniHateExams in

i've filed this under news and world events, although i could've posted it under entertainment, lol.

apparently, joe biden will be seeking re-election for another term in the white house.. this, despite a recent poll showing that 70% of people don't want him to run again.. biden just has to be the worst president i've seen.

his gaffes, over-relience on a prompter, and, more than any other president, his refusal to answer journalists' questions, all go to make him top of the list in terms of bad presidents.. it will certainly provide entertainment, if nothing else..

Journeyman

So Trump has been found likely responsible for sexual assault (but not rape), and making false and defamatory statements with malice, and ordered to pay the victim nearly $5m.

It's a civil case not a criminal one and Trump has, of course, said he will fight the verdict, but as someone living outside the USA (who is frankly amazed he even came near the White House), I wonder what do our US members think will be the likely impact on his chances of being President again? And/or the effect on the Republican choice for candidate to run against Biden (assuming the old man makes it himself!)

20

JWs don't consider older WT as revelant

by enoughisenough in

i am relating this happening.

i shared some thoughts from the 1989 question from readers concerning christ being mediator between god and man ( the wt spinning that he isn't ) and also the paragraph in that same article that plainly says: clearly, then the new covenant is not a loose arrangement open to all mankind.

it is a carefully arranged legal provision involving god and anointed christians.

Journeyman

The erasing or selective editing of past teachings and documentation is one of the most concerning aspects of the org's history and the pace of it seem to have accelerated in recent decades.

Even Jesus, in establishing Christianity in place of the Jewish system, didn't say: "You know all that Law stuff God gave you on those tablets? Forget it. Never happened".

Or can you imagine the apostle Paul writing a new set of letters to the first century congregations that said: "Er... you know those letters I wrote to you last year? Forget it all, here's some new light. Oh and by the way, you shouldn't even keep any record of my old letters or refer back to them. Just burn them and pretend you never saw them!"

Crazy.

13

Legal fight over door-to-door notes continues: case goes to Strasbourg

by Corney in

on 10 june 2019, the finnish jw organization lodged an application against finland with the european court of human rights.

the case was quickly - by the court's standards - communicated to the finnish government on 10 december 2019. the complaint itself isn't available online but there is a brief summary (see the link above) prepared by the court:.

the application concerns the jehovah’s witnesses’ religious activities in finland and their compatibility with the data protection regulations.

Journeyman

That's fair enough. There's no reason why the org should expect to be exempt from data protection and privacy rules that every other organisation has to abide by.

In their "heyday", major cases used to be about real questions of rights and freedom of worship/religion, but these days most of the cases they try to bring are at best dubious and at worst vexatious. As a result, their once proud record of winning has been taking a battering and their legal teams are increasingly being humiliated. And of course, they're haemorrhaging money for legal costs.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

Journeyman

559 and counting (down)... drip, drip...

136

Colossian 1:16 - "all OTHER things"

by aqwsed12345 in

due to their apparent theological bias, the watchtower shamelessly inserts the word "other" in order to "make room" for their own idea that jesus is also a created being.

it is clear that jehovah's witnesses try to avoid having to admit that christ created everything because "the one who constructed all things is god" (hebrews 3:4).

instead, the society teaches that "christ was the only one created by god," and that then he "created everything else with jehovah.

Journeyman

Ok, I'll bite for just one more time. Let's forget the academics and other human philosophies for a second (since they ultimately boil down to "he said... she said" debates in the end).

At 1 Corinthians 15, Paul speaks of the importance of the resurrection of the Christ, of the first Adam and "the last Adam", and of fleshly and spiritual bodies and how God chooses to clothe ones in one body or the other as it pleases him.

For anyone rejecting the view of Jesus as a completely separate being from the Father, how could Jesus become an equivalent of Adam if he is co-eternal and part of an immutable Godhead?

Adam was non-existent before being created from the dust. He had before him the risk of dying and ceasing to exist again (returning to dust) if he failed God and chose to sin (which he did).

If Jesus has always existed as a part of a Godhead, he could not possibly be a parallel to Adam. How could his test in the flesh work? If he had failed by choosing to sin and then died in the flesh, he would simply have returned to being that part of the Godhead (or possibly even continued to be so in one form while also still in the flesh - depending on one's interpretation of how this Godhead is supposed to be).

However, because he was, in fact, a separate being, created by the Father first in spirit form, then transformed by the Father into flesh, his failure could have had the same consequences as that of Adam's - complete destruction. It also makes his success more directly relatable to all humankind (1 Peter 2:21), proving that they too could choose to be obedient if raised back to the same perfect state as Adam (and Jesus in the flesh) had been.

The parallel and symbolic importance is clear:

The first Adam was a physical created son of God who proved unfaithful as a father to mankind and thus condemned his offspring to death, the "last Adam" (Jesus) a spiritual created son of God who then took on the same fleshly mantle but who proved it was possible to be faithful while in the flesh, and also thus became the adoptive father to all whom Adam had condemned to death (and hence became the promised "Eternal Father" - Isaiah 9:6 - often confused with God).

Indeed, at death Jesus ceased to exist, being "among the dead" until the "third day" (Luke 24:21,46; John 20:9), until his Father raised him up (John 10:17,18; Acts 2:24,32) back to the flesh (John 20:17), then later he returned to the spirit world (Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9). How could he be "among the dead" if he was a co-eternal part of a Godhead?