An Old Argument.... does it hold water?

by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences

• 

  d

  We have unrest in the Middle East and protesting on Wallstreet. Where is God in all this?. Oh wait he does not exist.
• 

  N.drew

  You ought to know kindness.
• 

  ShadesofGrey

  If we are trick or treating and I get the best candy haul at a certain house, should I keep it to myself or tell you where to find it too?

  Unfortunately, it seems that some here expect BOTH, dear SOG (the greatest of love and peace to you, too!): share it... with the world, even... but also keep it to yourself. Because they chide "us" for NOT "telling the world", sharing it in a more global manner... and then take issue because we share it here, even with them.

  Yes it certainly seems that way. Ah, but I guess we cannot please everyone all of the time, can we? So I pray for peace in the matter. My love to you, dear one.

  And what would constitute an answer to the OP? Why the only one that has helped me with this question is the one SA has shared in this thread! But then the thread topic has changed hasn't it?

  I am bumping up a thread concerning the name of Christ, so that we can all discuss it over there.
• 

  ShadesofGrey

  No sir, what I mean is you are arguing a moot point. "Calling upon" means something. That is why it's important to know the NAME. The sound of it isn't what "calling" means. From my point of view, your throwing mud.

  The word shemiy, which is from the root word shem (H8034), is often translated into English as name. The word shem, has a much deeper meaning than just name in the Hebrew language. Shem can also mean likeness, authority, character, renown, report, memorial, mark, fame, rank, majesty, and a representation of who someone is.

  And with that I will add what I believe: that I know that Christ is Lord over ALL, and I can call him Lord and still be calling on HIM.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Absolutely. This thread distils down to one of the things I hadn't realised about god belief until I got outside of it. It makes you justify immoral positions and to call them good. We have had page after page of frankly pathetic argument attempting to justify an unsupportable position. This is why god belief can be so tragic, it so often turns good people into blithering idiots.

  The simple unarguable position is that the continuance of suffering when the means to remove it exists and is achievable is an immoral position. This fact condemns individuals through to governments. As a thought exercise it also condemns people's pretend gods unless they can successfully show that their god either does not have the power or the ability to help.

  In the face of pages of sad apology and the lack of a serious debate ( there are lots of grown up, philosophical arguments that we could have chewed over on this thread as its a fascinating topic but we allowed AG and her convert to stifle any intellect and drive straight into an emotional hippy hug whine fest about how lovely their magic man is and how horrid and close minded it is to dare blame him for anything or question anything they may have posted, it's a pattern on pretty much every thread ) ; the final fall back position to this unstimulated thinker is to mock since no metaphysical thread has a hope in hell of escaping AGs bedtime stories.

  ND on a separate note your posts are gradually making more sense, I feel a little more like I'm talking / listening to someone rather than watching a random thought generator. Thanks.
• 

  sizemik

  what constitutes an "answer", in your opinion? . . . AGuest

  The OP posed a conundrum as in; . . . n. an intricate and difficult problem with a seemingly impossible solution.

  In my opinion . . . an answer would be one that actually solves the conundrum while holding water. In spite of the preponderance of material, I see none outside of the three original alternatives apart from "I don't know" which once again, while being an answer, does not solve the conundrum.

  Glib is just plain mean. Are you joking about my ring theory? . . . N.drew

  N.drew . . . please understand that nothing was a criticism of you personally.

  To you and tec I'll say this . . . the smugness and self-satisfaction that comes from possession (esp. knowledge) is a natural human response that is common to us all. It is exactly the same as the CD phenomenon and the confirmation bias that follows. If I accused you all of being biased or having CD that would probably offend you too. But the fact is it's part of the human condition . . . no exceptions. Anyone else who's done Psych 101 will tell you that. We all engage our confirmation biases and feel-goods 10x before breakfast, whether we know it or not.

  The observation was made in a general sense. The challenge I put, was to acknowledge it's presence and see past it to some degree . . . in order to see the issues more clearly and get away from our own personal context, in order to give the subject a decent shake. Hell, it obviously didn't get seen that way. I'm looking for possible answers here (and maybe pull a leg or two, hopefully good-naturedly) . . . not to give or take offence.
• 

  AGuest

  In the LXX, in greek, Joshua is written as Iesous.

  Yes, dear PSacto (again, the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!)... written as such, but that is not the translation of "Iesous." If what you're stating is TRUE... then everyone named "Joshua" in the OT should be SHOWN a "Jesus"... in the English versions. Yes? OR... everywhere it states "Jesus" in the NT... SHOULD read as "Joshua" in the English Bible versions. Yes? In other words, "Iesous" is EITHER "Joshua"... or it's "Jesus", because both of the latter are ENGLISH renditions. Yes? Yet, they are not spelled the same, even contain the same letter/symbols.

  Here is how it has been further explained to me, which I am to share with you, which explanation I have to put faith in:

  "Iesous" translates to "Jesus"... not "Joshua." There is no Greek translation for "Joshua"... to anything but "Joshua." IT... is a translation FROM the Hebrew ("Jehoshua, etc.). "Iesous", however, was NOT the spelling used in earlier versions of the LXX (which were around when our Lord was present in the flesh... when he was "Jah eShua/Joshua"), but came about in [much] later versions (i.e., after the non-Greek NT writings were translated to Greek, to accommodate the "Greek-speaking" disciples... which was done FIRST... because of their message).

  "It was originally the designation for the Koine Greek translation of the Pentateuch, but came in time to refer to the Greek translation of the Old Testament adopted by Christians, incorporating the translations of all the books of the Hebrew Bible and books later considered apocryphal or detero-canonical some composed in Greek and some translations. The translation process was undertaken in stages between the 3rd century BCE and the 1st century CE, initially in Alexandria, but in time possibly elsewhere too. Although the translation was not completed for some time,it reached completion before 132 BCE."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

  "Jesus" is the name that means what I shared with you: Je (Jah) is [the highest] God ("zeus"), yes. BUT, again, it corresponds with name of the Greek NATIONAL God. It came about as to our Lord due to an effort by Greek-speaking disciples to "honor" God... and in THEIR language. Unfortunately, the name they USED... also "honored" their national god: Zeus. It eventually made it's way into the OT due to the efforts of the scribes to prevent total rejection OF the OT (which was threatened, due to the NEW Law). To avoid this, the "scribes" changed "Joshua" to "Iesous"... "Jesus"... everywhere you see it in the OT. However, since many knew that the original people referred to were named "JOSHUA"... it came to be taught that "Iesous" and "Joshua" are the same. They are NOT.

  Our Lord has asked me to ask you this, to help you "see" what I am sharing:

  In the OT, "Joshua" was the name of those appointed to(1) lead Israel into the Promised Land; and (2) act as high priest. Three (3) fulfilled this:

  1. Joshua, the son of Nun (who led Israel into Canaan);

  2. Joshua, the son of Jehozadak (the sitting high priest), thus next in line to be high priest; and

  3. "Joshua, the High Priest"... who was and is... "Sprout!", our Lord.

  In contrast, those whose names WERE "Jesus" in the Bible (besides Christ) are:

  1. The man, Barabbas (whose FULL name was "Jesus Barabbas" - Matthew 27:16);

  2. A GREEK companion of Paul; and

  3. Apparently, many others as it was a COMMON name among GREEKS, who were prevalent the area, during the period. Because it honored their "highest" god.

  Now:

  A. IF "Iesous" translates to "Joshua"... WHY is our Lord called "Jesus" in the NT? Since most of what we have today is translated from Greek (although some of THAT was translated from Aramaic)... why the "change"? Why "Joshua" in the Greek OT... and "Jesus" in the Greek NT... when both apparently were preceded by "Iesous"?

  B. Why, would the Most Holy One of Israel give His Son... who must bear and glorify HIS name... JAH, of Armies ("JaHVeH")... a common name... and one borne by a TRUE criminal?? Why would that criminal have HIS name? Contrastly, not only was "Joshua" NOT a common name, at all (because it was HEBREW in origin and NOT Greek)... but NONE of those who bore it profaned it. Jesus Barabbas, however, profaned the name given HIM... twice: as a criminal, first... and then when he let our Lord undeservingly die when it SHOULD have been him.

  BUT... you TRULY do NOT have to take MY word for ANY of this. TRULY. Ask, dear one. I understand wanting to keep peace. I understand not wanting to go against what seems to be the given/accepted. I understand. But I don't think we're supposed to do those things... at the risk of speaking the truth. That we might not see or understand that truth in FULL at a given point in time... doesn't mean we can't put faith in it... when we hear it from our Lord, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit... by means of the anointing with holy spirit that HE has given us.

  He has told me these things, shared them with me, dear one. I can ask for more "proof"... or I can simply put FAITH... in the thing "heard." I have been doing the latter for some time now and it has served ME well. I won't stop now. Of course, I know you understand that.

  Again, the greatest of love and peace to you... as well as ears to hear as to THIS matter, if you truly wish them!

  YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ... always and to time indefinite...

  SA

  In contrast,
• 

  ShadesofGrey

  when we hear it from our Lord, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit... by means of the anointing with holy spirit that HE has given us.
• 

  AGuest

  an answer would be one that actually solves the conundrum while holding water.

  What, in your opinion, would constitute "holding water," dear one (again, peace to you!). Please note, I am not trying to drag the matter out by asking more questions. Rather, I am trying to find out what answer would suffice for you. Because I believe many of the responses here DID solve the conundrum... and held water. I think others, albeit not all, would agree. That you perhaps believe none did... could be subjective. So, I am asking what YOU believe an answer that held water would be/look like.

  In spite of the preponderance of material, I see none outside of the three original alternatives apart from "I don't know" which once again, while being an answer, does not solve the conundrum.

  But that's you, dear one, yes? Doesn't solve it for YOU. Even man being responsible for what occurs with man... doesn't solve it for you. Okay. But apparently it solves it for others. At what point, then, do YOU accept that... and move on? I mean, evolution doesn't "solve the conundrum" for a lot of others (human evolution certainly doesn't solve it for me). That there is only a physical realm doesn't solve "it" for me and others. Science, in and of itself, doesn't solve it for me (and obviously not for others). At some point, then, I would have to conclude that I don't see "eye to eye" with those for whom such DOES solve conundrums... and let them move forward with believing/disbelieving... whatever they choose to. Yes? I mean, so long as they ARE so choosing... and not being forced/coerced/made to believe/disbelieve. Because otherwise, what really is it to ME?

  "We know that we all possess knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know."

  A wise thought by (Paul), yes, dear SOG (again, peace to you!); however, I am not so sure his application was wise... as it was actually HIM who was disregarding it. At the time, he was trying to persuade the Corinthian congregation to do something against the "law" of Christ... which something the 12... and many in the congregation... were taking issue with. They had walked with our Lord personally and so knew that some of what (Paul) was teaching (i.e., removing/shunning/DF'ing... rather than FORGIVING... members) was wrong. They tried to tell him... but because HE was the one "puffed up" at the time, rejected their "counsel." At some point, he called them "superfine" apostles. True, they weren't all that above reproach, either; however, the Corinthian congregation was in utter turmoil: some sided with Paul and wanted to take action based on the [Old] Law... and some sided with the Apostles and wanted to give the man a rebuke (according to our Lord's words, as recorded at Matthew 18:15-17).

  Paul, a former Pharisee (and one from a young man, so a bit of ego going on there!), wasn't used to having his "authority" stymied, so. He was actually upset in his second letter to the Corinthians (which YOU know as 1 Corinthians!)... because they HADN'T done what he had commanded them to do about the matter in his FIRST letter (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). Which letter is NOT included in the Bible canon (apparently, it was pretty bad and what prompted the Apostles to take issue with him!). His second letter, however, was kind of a "how DARE you not do what I instructed you??"... which not only attempted to read them the riot act... but lay a bit of a guilt trip on them.

  Well, this second letter (1 Corinthians) caused such a turmoil among them... again, they almost split! And Paul would have been the cause! When he condescended to admit that HE was the one who didn't know all that HE "ought to know"... the Spirit helped HIM to see the error of his way. As a result, he recanted his instructions and told the congregation that if THEY forgave a certain man... HE forgave him, too... and their "rebuke" (again, per Christ)... was "enough" for him!

  Why didn't Paul KNOW how to handle that matter? Why didn't he know that it was a matter to be handled as stated at Matthew 15? Because Matthew 15 had not been writtten! All that the Apostles heard, saw, and learned from our Lord had not been written down yet! They TRIED to TELL him... but HE... didn't listen. Because HE thought he was "where" THEY were (and he wasn't - he wasn't and isn't one of the 12, on which the FOUNDATION of New Jerusalem is built!).

  Thus, when he wrote "We know that we all possess knowledge," he meant himself, the Apostles, older men, etc. HE felt like some of these weren't showing HIM love (and perhaps they weren't - they did often have problems with "outsiders")... when the truth was that HE wasn't showing love... toward the man... and the Corinthian congregation.

  Did he learn? He did. In his letter to the Romans about a year later, he wrote that "we" were not to judge... "anymore."

  I hope this helps, dear, and thank you... for your concern and for sharing the verses. I totally understand their point and your... and accept why you did so. I hope YOU understand my response... and why I share it with you.

  Again, peace to you!

  YOUR servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  N.drew

  The spirit behind "he is highest" and the spirit behind "he is salvation" are different aren't they?

  Yes, they are different. Shelby and I are calling on the one who is salvation who has made himself the least one, not the greatest one. She is warning you, is what I believe, do NOT call on the greatest one. Call on the one to whom salvation belongs.

  So, did I tell you my theory of the ring?