is it real though?
or just faked for the viewing public?
it has a bit of a set up feel to it.
Reniaa
it's three parts, not super-long.
i really can't believe the stuff the elders said in this case.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhgdqgtth98.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy4s1ohs9r4.
is it real though?
or just faked for the viewing public?
it has a bit of a set up feel to it.
Reniaa
alright, with my last post it should be obvious i'm in conflict...if it's not, then yeah.. my boyfriend is not a witness.
he understands that witnesses can't marry or date non witnesses.
but i guess could say we've been stalling...looking for a solution a gray area to that black and white situation...but with time getting as it is...stalling doesn't work anymore.
hi hikaro
while not approved of because they know the difficulties involved, it is allowed to date and marry an unbeliever. because the bible does allow for it.
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
your children will be okay through you being a believer. and maybe you can win your partner without a word. It is not an easy thing you want to do and it takes a lot of love to respect for each having different beliefs.
1 Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, Reniaa
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi nark and deputy
on the the various scripturial accounts of this event the same elements are all there.
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
the parallels are to marked to be ignored. And more importantly this is scripturial accounts of a specific ONE off event.
And as a side issue why only one archangel mentioned? why is this one of some many as trinitarians would have it the one he descends with? and why specifically the voice?
Reniaa
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi leolaia
again curtesy of a greek scholar and not me.
On the bases that it is answering the question "How did Jesus descend" so dative indicates the manner not the associates, people simply don't bring voices down with them.
http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gcase.html
Dative of Manner (Adverbial Dative) [with, in (answering "How?")]
The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished. Like many adverbs, this use of the dative answers the question "How?" The manner can be an accompanying action, attitude, emotion, or circumstance. Hence, such a dative noun routinely has an abstract quality. This usage is being supplanted by en + dative (or meta + gen) in Koine Greek.
John 7:26 He speaks with boldness (= boldly)
1Cor 10:30 if I partake [of the food] with thanksgiving (= thankfully)
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi leolaia
heres a bibble verse that goes against the dative argument or acompanying
Rev 19:17 has a similar construct
"He cried with a loud voice " εν φωνη μεγαλη"
en phoni megala (dative)
He didn't cry 'in the midst' of a loud voice
curtesy of a greek scholar (not me lol)
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi leolaia
yes but unbiased? the problem witnesses have is years of theology shaping translation so it becomes a self perpetuating thing. trinity theology cannot allow the 'with' to be anything other than with in an accompanying sense so they have experts to back them up.
You said yourself the ambiguity is there with the use of 'with' which is the word used and "amid" as much as you would prefer is not the actual word used.
I know this is a pre-witness argument between scholars in greek so it must have enough ambiguity to go both ways.
I always find this argument ironic because the word being 'With' God is given the opposite treatment in John 1:1 there people say it doesn't mean with God in the accompanying sense because it would mean another God accompanying God and so we have polytheism and 2 Gods.
Reniaa
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
HI leolaia
the point is if we look at what archangel is, Chief of angels. so the verse is saying with a commanding call and with the voice of a chief of angels, and with the trumpet of God. this makes more sense. And certainly allows Jesus to be the archangel talking himself. And john backs this up saying it is jesus's voice that dead hear not an archangels voice as well in his verse. Revelation is not known for being especialy good at grammer in the greek and being quite rough in it's expressions.
I have not the greek understanding to effectively debate you on greek so I am already severely handicapped on this discussion so I would like to state for the record that I would prefer an unbiased third party on this discussion.
Reniaa
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi nark
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
hmmm this is not a good paralell because it is not the same event but both thess and john are the same event and are talking of the dead rising and what happens that triggers this.
I stand corrected on Jesus sending an angel but it's not a big issue I wasn't sure and one thing Jesus, michael(if you think he is separate) and God all have in common is ALL have command over Angels.
If having comand over angels makes you God then michael is also God.
I keep checking and I find no one else quibbling over the translation of 'en' as 'with' in thess like leolaia does. even the most rabid anti=witness sites do not quibble that it says with.
One thing I found out is Jesus being michael debate is an old one that has bean debated throughout the centuries. JW's are certianly not unique to think Jesus is michael.
Another intersting factor is Jesus was accepted by a lot of trinitarian religions as the 'Angel of the Lord' from early on. So jesus not being an angel so can't be michael is only a recent argument as far as I can find from research.
One thing I cannot understand is we quibble over the right verbs that show jesus is with michael and not michael himself. There are tons more verses like this showing Jesus is not God.
I think these discussions highlight how much theology really effects debate.
Reniaa
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi leolaia
this translator ( i think he supports the Jw position) completely disagrees with you and can cite biblical examples were 'en' is 'with' especially when saying with a voice.
"A reasonably close parallel to ' εν φωνη αρχαγγελου, en phone archangelou' (with an/the archangel's voice) in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is at 2 Peter 2:16: “the dumb ass speaking with man's voice”. Here we have ' εν φωνη, en phone' (with the/a voice) together with a genitive. The donkey was speaking with a man's voice - but it was the donkey that was speaking, not a man nearby. Likewise, in all other cases where 'en phone' is used in the NT, the voice in question always belongs to the subject of the sentence, not some unspecified third person. - See Revelation 5:2; 14:7, 9; 18:1"
When the archangel's voice is heard, “the dead in Christ shall rise first” (1 Thessalonians 4:16). But John 5:28, 29 tells us: “all that are in the graves shall hear his [Christ's, not just any angel's] voice and shall come forth.” Both verses use the Greek word φωνη phone - once for the archangel's voice, once for the Son of Man's voice, following which the resurrection takes place. One voice, not two, is heard. Logically, then, we must conclude that there is one voice because there is one person.
Reniaa
i have a lot of good stuff at home on the subject but i'm at work and could use some help for a friend who was just conversing w/ a jw..
hi leolaia
Your saying amid is better but why have none of the translation used amid? because none of them have so I would probs like a second opinion on that .
You say Jesus speaks through angels but in the bible that never happens even with Pauls conversion he came himself. And with the Revelation of John he talks himself again.
There is a strong argument that Jesus is the 'Angel of Lord' that God talks through hense why he is called 'The word'
So if we have no biblical instances of Jesus himself talking through angels isn't that an assumption on your part?
Reniaa