Posts by Viviane

7

why is this not an issue with the wt org?

by sowhatnow in

i watched this and thought hmm, so when getting a birth certificate, your handing your child over to be owned by the govt.

anyone with the 'stock certificate of manifest' [how much your worth] is owned by their govt.. the wt is ok with everyone including themselves being owned by 'satans govt' lol.. in theory no jw should have a birth certificate.

especially since they let people in the past, die over that refusal to have a govt issued certificate.. they assign you a bond /stock number, its the tiny red letters on your certificate.. and you are now property of that government , so you have no rights to your children, they can take them if they feel you are in the wrong.. they and we are slaves to a govt.. [our last names are a 'brand' creepy.

Viviane

So.... you realize this is all crazy talk, right?

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Viviane

provide your sources for making the claim that in Jewish culture the phrase "son of <mother>" was ever used regarding another Jew.

The Bible is my source. Jesse and David, from Naomi, Ruth 4:17. In any event. Jesus was also called son of Joseph. Luke 1:27 specifically calls out Joseph as the descendant of David and only mentions Mary as "the virgin".

You've read the book, right? I only ask because, since you said you are hoping to be a NT scholar, you've several time made claims about the Bible that are demonstrably wrong.

also, in Jewish culture, if the father was unknown, this would have made it a derogatory reference to his illigitimacy.

Please provide your citation by actual scholars.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

I'm going to assume then that you have no such sources and have spent no time actually studying this beyond what you can find on the Internet, or your own uneducated cursory reading of scripture

No such sources? As I said, I am, in part, using yours, the sources you claimed were reputable. Why would you make such an ignorant assumption? If you are attempting to be an NT scholar, you should learn to not make ignorant assumptions.

Until this is proven wrong, I will not take anything you say as a serious educated discussion.

I am doing my best to educate you. I can't make you learn.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

It wasn't a backport. You see it as such because you are looking back at it. What is being suggested is that they knew all along.

Jesus was never called Emmanuel. Every man born was born of a woman. Lots of people were called King. Lots of people were beloved by little children. But, most importantly, NONE, not ONE of those scriptures says anything other than a very generic thing that never says who or what specifically it is about or when. Saying "this means Jesus" is adding on extra meaning by later readers to the text, not simply letting the text speak for itself.

You are using tortured, pretzel logic in an attempt to make the facts fit your predetermined beliefs rather than follow the evidence objectively and draw conclusions based on that.

52

USING CONTEXT to understand 'supernatural' Jesus

by TerryWalstrom in

to 27 b.c.e.. in the years of roman republic, no man was called a god (or even a king).

however, 200 years of peace under a ruler imperator, (emperor) gradually relaxed the fears of romans of having a dictator.

surely the gods had bestowed unusual approval!

Viviane

Thus to ignore Joseph shows the public knew about the issue regarding his birth. It's difficult to ignore the implications. I can concede we have no way of knowing FOR SURE this had derogatory intent, but we do know for sure this demonstrates they knew about his birth.

Why couldn't it just as easily meant the father was unknown or they had a reason for NOT wanting people to know who he was? You are assuming the saying "son of Mary" automatically implies all of these other things and there is no evidence for that.

it is supported by cultural history, and common sense should tell you that since they never referred to a male this way they were doing it here with Jesus for a reason. Unless you have a better explanation for why this cukture would randomly choose Jesus as the only example of the feminine expression "Son of Mary"?

Now you are assuming Jesus was the only person referred as being born of a virgin and as the son of woman. He was not.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

also could you list your references being used?

I am using your sources, among others.

You're talking about the same God being worshipped different ways. I'm not sure why you're drawing a distinction and trying to assert that Moses was dealing with a complete different God. Moses, or whoever wrote these books, made no effort to hide that El Shaddai and yahweh were identical. They explicitly said so

Wow. Way to twist my words. El was the supreme god in semitic cultures. Yahweh was a lessor, minor god, brother of Ba'al. Later, the Hebrew people's, the Israelites, who claimed Abraham as their founder, just as Muslims do, who worshiped Yahweh, began to give him qualities of El. El and Yahweh were not the same. Later semitic peoples merged two distinct gods into one, but ONLY for a very small subset of the semitic peoples that shared this pantheon of Gods.

I am drawing a distinction because that is what the evidence supports.

If the bible writers had made an effort to hide this gods history, I'd agree with you. But they didn't, so I don't.

The Bible clearly shows the evolution of the merging of these two distinct gods, even your own sources.

You seem to think this discredits the bible somehow, but it does not. Had the writer tried to hide it, like this God just chose him all the sudden, then it would - but that's not what happens in the books.

You seem to think the default should be "Bible until proven otherwise". It's not. BTW, God choosing anyone is a theological argument, not a historical one. It's got no place in a discussion on history.

All through the New Testament yahweh is actually recalled from the Old Testament and applied to Christ (Hebrews 1 is an example

That's a perfect example of people taking things written in one context and backporting the idea to mean something entirely different! Jesus, specifically, was not predicted in the OT. A similar thing happened to Yahweh.... things written about a completely different God, El, were eventually claimed to be about Yahweh and eventually their distinct identities were merged by Hebrew semitic peoples.

It would show that the God being referred to by Jacob and Abraham whom they spoke with was el Shaddai, later yahweh, and the being who becomes Jesus. While El, is the father of this being, the almighty who Christ refers to as greater than himself. It would fit the very binitarian view of the NT by demonstrating a similar view in the OT.

That's an incredibly tortured, pretzel logic interpretation of what you are reading. Sadly, that's what happens when you try to make the facts fit your beliefs and not the other way around.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

Now why is it people are assuming that humans made them?

Because there is no other known process by which that a structure like that can occur. As soon as there is evidence suggesting otherwise, they will investigate that.

Why aren't scientists coming up with theories on how natural processes made it?

Because in all of history and observation, there is nothing to indicate that is likely or has ever happened.

A bunch of earthquakes and things could have caused the stones to get carved up, and then landshift and earthquakes cause them to get filled up and buried, etc.

Very true. It also could have been caused by your sister that you might not have even know you had traveling back in time in a TARDIS just to mess with you. But, since there is zero evidence that either of those things can, does or has ever happened, there is no investigation into it.

Anyway, how life first began, that is life on this planet, looking into intelligent life vs random as part of all possibilities then your claim that then one must look at a rhino made of pigs is a ridiculous comparison. One would consider the possiblity where any sort of intelligent life is responsible for life on this planet, whether biological alien scientists, God, a rhino of pigs, etc.

Well, first of all, it's not "random". Secondly, since there is no evidence of intelligent life outside of humans, one cannot assume what form it would take. You simply don't know. Therefore, if you claim that, to be scientific, one must look at ALL possibilities, that must be included. For all you know, God is a rhino made of pigs and that is what spirit is made of, pigs. All means all.

Anyway the scientific process doesn't mean that all hypothesis that life originates on this planet and by random chance and that is the only possibility that is considered and investigated.

No one said it did. You clearly didn't understand what you said, my response or the implications of either.

If that is what you believe then your as close minded as you were when you were a JW.

I don't believe it. Only and idiot would and only someone who doesn't understand the scientific method or basic logic would derive that from what I said.

The basic problem with "all" is that first, it's a logical impossibility. Even if you want to include only broad topics as "all", you can't ever know if there is something you don't know, therefore you can't say you've investigated "all", ever. Period. Full stop. Do not pass go.

Secondly, there are some topics that are outside investigative possibilities. You say "god may have done it and we should investigate", but there is no way to do that. God is invisible, made of undetectable stuff that no one can describe, able to perfectly hide from detection and, according to Christian scripture, will cause death just by even looking at him. It's a perfectly un-investigatable explanation. There is no way to move forward. There is no evidence that ANYTHING was every cause by an invisible undetectable intelligence made of unknown stuff.

Why should anyone investigate that?

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

I disagreed because monotheism doesn't allow for worship of other gods.

Ah, I see the problem, you don't do what monotheism means. Monotheism means the belief in only one god. Henotheism means worship of one or a primary god while believing others exist. The Israelites and Hebrew semitic peoples were clearly henotheistic even if they only worshiped a single god (or were supposed to, anyway).

I don't know what you mean when you say monotheism was a much later addition. It appears to me that israelite belief in and worship of only one God was on the agenda as far as God and moses were concerned

If they didn't believe in other gods, there would be no proclamation against worshiping them. If no one had ever stolen anything, there would be no laws against it. If no one had ever used credit, there would be no credit laws or counseling.

Similarly, there were prohibitions against worshiping other gods and angels precisely because the Hebrew semitic peoples and Israelites believed in them. Baal was a great example.

(I'm not disputing the fact that the israelites did fall into false worship but, monotheisim had already been introduced and the first commandment didn't allow for worship of other gods as you suggest)

Well, false or not is a theological argument, one we aren't having. Either way, the first commandment NEVER EVER says not to worship other gods, just worship Yahweh before all others (or no worship together, depending on your view). Never, not once says "you can't believe in other gods".

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

So, anyway, there is no requirement of science to test every possible idea. A person may choose to go that route, but it is certainly not part of the scientific method.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

The part that needs a citation is the assertion that the church invented it.

That was your own reference. The one you said was reputable.

as far as El being the Ugarit pantheon father. This was never disputed by me. Fact: this God was Abrahams God known as Elshaddai. The God was later known as yahweh

Absolutely not true. Yahweh was around when El was, only later, when Yahweh became the primary god for the Hebrew semitic peoples was he backported to El.

This God had at least one prophet he spoke to who wasn't in the tribe of Israel. In numbers 22 balaam lives in Pethor. This suggests that the God had other prophets in the area who weren't Israelites. so it would seem there were others besides Israelites who accepted the God El as their God. Just because the gods worship was changed or evolved does not make it a new God.

Well... no. That doesn't even make sense. What IS true is that that story was written LONG after the purported events were supposed to have happened (which, by the way, most certainly did NOT happen). Yahweh have already been backported to be the supreme god by then, mixed with El.

It is an inescapable FACT that El and Yahweh were separated and that Yahweh eventually, in Hebrew semitic culture, was fused with El, but ONLY there. That is a well supported and demonstrable thing, your own sources agree.

In arguing this I would submit that the surrounding nations evolved the God into something completely different from its original preserved by Melchizadek. So that THEY took on a new God, while Israel preserved the original.

Except that's the opposite of every piece of evidence, including your sources that you said were reputable.

But this is a theological argument, not a historical one.

No, that's a historical argument. A historical argument, such as this, is how gods evolved in culture. A theological argument would be whether or not that god was real.

From history we can assert that El was Abrahams God, that Melchizadek was this gods priest and this priest blessed Abraham. Then Abraham passed the worship of this God alone onto his descendants.

That's fine. History also shows that the Hebrew semitic peoples also backported their God into El, making him more important and powerful than he was (and also divorcing his wife).

catholics worship differently. Jehovah's witnesses worship differently. Protestants worship differently. Do they worship the same God? Yes.

That's not a modern day example. At all.