by GOrwell 39 Replies latest jw experiences
Yes, the verses say that but I think its a bit of a stretch to get " He proclaimed Jesus as God" from them.
Chirst told him to proclaim what God had done and he went and procaimed what Jesus had done, this is correct BUT I think that unless you LOOK for the Christology there, it isn't what we get more "naturally" from reading that passage.
Don't get me wrong, the Christology IS THERE, but I don't know how much a JW would see it that way.
Them learned men would commit these teachings to the parchment..... Just like the early Christians.... After that, it must be taken on faith. Faith that God would protect his word from corruption. guided by the Holy Spirit.
This foundational presupposition can be demonstrated to be false immediately and irrevocably!
The earliest copy of a copy of a copy is an itsy bitsy postage stamp sized piece of confetti! Should we say the Holy spirit has "preserved" this??
The oldest existing bible copies (of copies of copies, etc) do not have any sort of provenance as to who/what/when/where/how they came about-----nor do they match regional copies (of copies of copies, etc.) from other locations at about the same time.
Without provenance no masterpiece of art could be taken on face value nor any antique because it is profitable to market forgeries and clever (and rich) are the ones dealing in such "antiquities".
Not to put too fine a point on it: the actual "preserved by holy spirit" manuscripts consist of shreds from landfills, viritual dumpsters, rotting and dismantled by corruption and the ravages of centuries.
A real Holy Spirit preservation might be expected to consist of less stench, rot, shredding and non-verification by provenance!
At the time of Constantine, his mother had quite a hobby of purchasing flagrant "holy relics" forgeries by con-men out to make a buck off the Emperor's family preoccupation with christianity. The idea that the "true cross" of Jesus could be found wholly preserved and owned as a spiritual treasure is both lunatic and naive!
These people were borderline nuts. And I doubt the border was well-guarded!
Not to be a sticklier but the Rylands papyrus is about, if I recall, 3 x 2 inches ;P
The oldest codexs we haves are dated between 300-350 AD, less than 300 years after Christ.
In terms of historical documents that is VERY good.
I wanted to bump this thread and discuss Hebrews 2:5-9, relating to the deity of Christ. Though the authorship of Hebrews has always been up for discussion, Paul is the most commonly accepted author. Hebrews Chapter 1 goes through the same thought process of trying to identify who or what Jesus is by comparing him to angels, but Hebrews 2:5 is slighty moved to the backburner.
Heb 2:5 (NWT) : "For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. 6 But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? 7 You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. 8 All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; 9 but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man]."
The main idea here is that God didn't subject the future inhabited earth to an angel. However, He did subject it to his Son. By extension, the Son/Jesus can't be an angel, because God didn't subject it to an angel.
Thus, who or what is Jesus?
The oldest codexs we haves are dated between 300-350 AD, less than 300 years after Christ.
In terms of historical documents that is VERY good.
One of the most bitterly contested historical events of my lifetime was the shooting of JFK in front of the Texas School Book Depository.
That was only 49 years ago! There are so many theories competing with one another as to who did it or why. Oswald? C.I.A.? Castro? K.G.B.?
L.B.J.? Mafia? People have testified in court as to what they swore they saw only to be repudiated by others.
You know what the conclusion is? Each of us has our OWN idea and theory and none of the so-called testimony or documentation (Warren Commission Report) changes anybody's mind.
Now that was less than 50 years ago.
Do you know how far back 300 years ago was from today? About the year 1712! How many facts about 1712 would you stake your life on?
I'm just saying.........
I mainly resurrected this thread to say: I'm sorry. I was wrong.
I remember this thread from a year ago. My understanding has slowly opened up since then, so my apologies for being dense or challenging. If one doesn’t ask questions, one can’t get answers! I now see that the NT points to Christology and a Tri-unity.
Unfortunately, I think this is one of the last doctrines one would discuss with a JW, because they are taught to believe the Tri-unity is Modalism. Say “Jesus is God” to a JW and they hear, “Jesus is the Father”. There are many semantics to overcome.
Glad to see that you realized that Londo :)
I just realized that I never replied to Terry's post.
One of the most bitterly contested historical events of my lifetime was the shooting of JFK in front of the Texas School Book Depository.
WHat was contested? That JFK existed? that he was killed? How he was killed?
Nope, only WHO and WHY.
My Point?
300 Years from now that may still be the same ( unless new evidence is found of course). We will know that JFK was the president, that he was killed on that day,in that place and by that method.
Controversies will still be there and so will the facts.
Interesting subjects. One of the factors that woke me up was the realization that JW's do not belive in the divinity of Christ. The whole Archangel thing too. The WTBTS are nitpickers for the sake of setting up their brand of religion. I mean if the GB really believe in a Creator, then why couldn't that being create another life from their own life-force. That new being would be of, and from the same substance as the being who did the begetting. There is a link between the Father and Christ that we cannot understand with our limited physical viewpoint.
As usual, instead of remaining silent and appearing to be an idiot, the GB opens it's mouth with an answer for everything and removes all doubt! Their incessant need to always KNOW has been their achillies heel. I guess you when you claim to be God's mouthpiece on Earth, you had better come up with an answer. Who cares if it's wrong. That is why df'ing was invented.
Some of the language of the Eastern Orthodox Churches probably would not be objected to by JWs- The Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father.
