thanks for that point nark
Imperfection is irrelevant. Who has the right to rule?
by bluecanary 117 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Spike Tassel
"Perfection" means acting thoroughly and even-handedly, in one context; but, it also varies depending on capacity. The capacity of Jesus as a "perfect" man was based on a different quality of knowledge and abilities than that of the "imperfect" (i.e. sinners), including us. Thus, the difference between our knowledge and abilities post-Millenium (resulting from the blotting out of our sins completely, by the time of our being granted "everlasting life" when Satan and his horde "die the second death") versus prior to that.
-
Narkissos
Spike,
The Watchtower replaced the scriptural and traditional notions of "sin" and "sinlessness" with the (unscriptural in that context) notions of imperfection and perfection respectively. The difference may be subtle to you but they are not interchangeable.
You previously pointed to the use of the concept of "perfection" (teleios ktl.) in Matthew (5:48; 19:21) in defense of this notion. Nowhere in the whole Bible is Adam or the earthly Jesus called "perfect" (teleios). The closer match you can get to that is the argument in Hebrews that Jesus was "made perfect (teleioô) through suffering" (2:10; 5:8f; 7:28) -- very different. Otoh Noah is called "perfect" (teleios) in the Greek OT (LXX Genesis 6:9; Sirach 44:17), and "be perfect" is a command just like in Matthew (Deuteronomy 18:13).
The WT notion of Adam, Eve (down to their disobedience) and Jesus (from his conception or birth to his death) being "perfect humans" (and the only ones in history so far) is 100 % unscriptural.
-
Spike Tassel
Certainly Adam, Eve, and Jesus do differ from the rest of mankind, don't they, Narkissos? I suggest that even Christendom puts these 3 (in their obedient human states) in a different class, even those of Christendom who do not accept the God-man notion in relation to Jesus' human existence. I believe that an accurate read of the Bible determines who has the right to rule, in any situation.
-
Narkissos
Reading and writing between the lines, drawing and colouring in the margins, is up to every reader's imagination -- but the texts are what they are, and they stand to the commentaries, inferences, deductions, extrapolations people add to them to make sense of them. Buying prepackaged interpretations (or catechisms) instead of making your own can produce an illusion of safety -- but it only makes it more difficult to tell the texts from the commentary.
The Adam "character" in the Bible texts and contemporaneous literature is a very complex one: first 'adam is a noun, individual (man, human being) or collective (men, mankind); it is then construed as the name of a character (Adam) which retains the meanings of the common noun (a man representing mankind as an eponym, archetype or prototype depending on the texts). Taking him as (just) the first human "individual" reduces that potential considerably, and what is lost in this reduction resurges in imagination. The "first man" which you portray as "perfect" (whatever that may mean; the bellybutton dilemma comes to mind) has been described as a heavenly character, as a giant, as androgynous. He always has to be some sort of "monster," not quite like "a man," since no phenomenal man is the first one. He is the aporia of "origin" made flesh.
One thing that emerges from the Eden story, though, is that prior to the "seizing" (or "taking in"?) of knowledge he must have been pretty dumb if anything.
-
bluecanary
Narkissos, I always thought it odd as a JW that we placed so much emphasis on the notion of perfection, yet I couldn't recall one scripture that actually used the term in reference to how God created humanity or expected them to be in the paradise. Thanks for the information you posted.
Spike, thank you for your in-depth responses. You said:
Whoever is even-handed and righteous in their understanding and application of love and its prophetic statements, and holy in their motives is Jehovah's representative, whether as an individual, as a family, as a congregation, or as a brotherhood. The Bible sets the criteria in these matters.
Does this include individuals, families or congregations who fit those qualifications outside of the WTS? Does it matter that the GB recognizes no one but themselves as God's representatives?
"Doctrines" is also translated "teachings", which should all be in accord with the spirit of the Holy Scriptures, and fitting a wholistic view of the circumstances to which the teachings are applied.
Do I understand you correctly, that you are saying the true religion should not get any teachings wrong, but all its teachings should be in accord with the Scriptures? I'm not sure what you mean by "wholistic view of the circumstances." Does that mean that teachings can take on different meanings depending on the circumstances to which they are applied? Can you give me an example of what you mean here?
Of course, fundamental to all of this is Christ's directive to love Jehovah whole-souled, and our neighbour (including our enemy) as ourself.
I think this is such an important point; I'm glad you brought it out. Question: When you can take another Scriptural directive and interpret it in different ways, shouldn't you use the interpretation that is most in harmony with those two commands?
For example, you cite the Scripture at Acts 15:28, to abstain from blood. This can be interpreted in several ways including (a) a temporary suggestion to avoid an act that could stumble certain people at that time, (b) a permanent command regarding a dietary restriction and (c) a permanent command to avoid blood even if it is a non-dietary, life-saving treatment. Which of these interpretations is in harmony with the two most important commands to love God, the Creator and lover of life, and love our fellow man who holds his life dear?
if two sets of judicial decisions teach the same correct points, then we choose by our obedient understanding and applications, as our spirit of holiness approaches Jehovah's, in the manner of James 4:8
Does this mean that God will direct you to the correct religion? Does that mean that anyone who chooses the other religion(s) did not, for some reason, have God's blessing in choosing between two religions that taught the same doctrines? If someone is sincere enough to try to choose a religion based on correct understanding of the Bible, why would God not direct them to the correct group? Unless it doesn't matter to him which group they join.
-
Spike Tassel
Thank you, BlueCanary for this excellent set of questions regarding what I said. I'll do my best.
Whoever is even-handed and righteous in their understanding and application of love and its prophetic statements, and holy in their motives is Jehovah's representative, whether as an individual, as a family, as a congregation, or as a brotherhood. The Bible sets the criteria in these matters.
bluecanary: Does this include individuals, families or congregations who fit those qualifications outside of the WTS? Does it matter that the GB recognizes no one but themselves as God's representatives?
Spike Tassel: If indeed those qualifications WERE met by those OUTSIDE the WTS, then CERTAINLY Jehovah and Jesus Christ are WELL aware of this, and they will acknowledge this in THEIR own times and ways, both privately and publicly, irrespective of whomever the GB do or do NOT recognize as Jehovah's representatives.
"Doctrines" is also translated "teachings", which should all be in accord with the spirit of the Holy Scriptures, and fitting a wholistic view of the circumstances to which the teachings are applied.
bluecanary: Do I understand you correctly, that you are saying the true religion should not get any teachings wrong, but all its teachings should be in accord with the Scriptures? I'm not sure what you mean by "wholistic view of the circumstances." Does that mean that teachings can take on different meanings depending on the circumstances to which they are applied? Can you give me an example of what you mean here?
Spike Tassel: True religion is a very individual matter, since religion (i.e. judgment, judicial decision —2 Kings 17:26, NWT Ref.Bible footnote) differs, at least to some extent, depending on the individual or set of them, and their particular circumstances. Each person or group differs one from another in customs and practices, in admirable qualities and in on-going sin. The rulings must vary accordingly so that each may be brought into proper alignment with Jehovah and Jesus Christ, and thus function most beneficially for themselves and for the body as a whole.
Of course, fundamental to all of this is Christ's directive to love Jehovah whole-souled, and our neighbour (including our enemy) as ourself.
bluecanary: I think this is such an important point; I'm glad you brought it out. Question: When you can take another Scriptural directive and interpret it in different ways, shouldn't you use the interpretation that is most in harmony with those two commands?
For example, you cite the Scripture at Acts 15:28, to abstain from blood. This can be interpreted in several ways including (a) a temporary suggestion to avoid an act that could stumble certain people at that time, (b) a permanent command regarding a dietary restriction and (c) a permanent command to avoid blood even if it is a non-dietary, life-saving treatment. Which of these interpretations is in harmony with the two most important commands to love God, the Creator and lover of life, and love our fellow man who holds his life dear?
Spike Tassel: "Life-saving" can be focused solely on the temporary, sinful life in the hospital under medical care; or it can include not violating divine commands that affect our everlasting potential. Seeing that Jehovah is eternal and desires that all attain to repentance and everlasting life, I believe that it is most respectful (and harmonious with Scriptural directives in total) to avoid any purposeful mix of any 2 humans' blood for any purpose. Each one's consequences are in that one's blood. Why should I have the consequences of another's mistakes added to my own? I believe I have an abundance of mistakes to account and atone for already, without adding unknown diseases (the negative circumstances of the other) to the mix.
if two sets of judicial decisions teach the same correct points, then we choose by our obedient understanding and applications, as our spirit of holiness approaches Jehovah's, in the manner of James 4:8
bluecanary: Does this mean that God will direct you to the correct religion? Does that mean that anyone who chooses the other religion(s) did not, for some reason, have God's blessing in choosing between two religions that taught the same doctrines? If someone is sincere enough to try to choose a religion based on correct understanding of the Bible, why would God not direct them to the correct group? Unless it doesn't matter to him which group they join.
Spike Tassel: Because religion is a set of judgments (a.k.a. judicial decisions), we come into this world already under religion, the judgments and practices of parents or other care givers. Of course, harmony with Jehovah is the ideal. Thus, the command that we obey Jehovah is higher than any obedience to a human, including parents, children, or other human governance. We ought to always look beyond the words and actions of those around us, so as to have insight as to the principles from Jehovah that we ought to be governed by, and then act accordingly, moment by moment. We are directed to better choices on a somewhat haphazard basis, and we are often not aware until we exercise hindsight when we have been blessed or otherwise. Our outlook and decisions help shape the results we get. When we feel spiritually empty or demoralised, we need to trust that Jehovah is as good as His word, He DOES help the tired one to fly like an eagle, having hope and encouragement to go on, once again. Our showing love to all, friend or otherwise, is our responsibility, whether or NOT others show it to us.
-
AwSnap
I'm doing a little research on this & had to bump this thread...'specially since my buddies Palm & Blue rock! ATJ, you're alright too