Posts by peacefulpete

78

God, one person, or three?

by slimboyfat in

the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.

Yes, later redactors found the anthropomorphic depiction of Yahweh as unbecoming and introduced a messenger figure into a number of texts. This left some readers to conclude what is referred to as the two powers concept. This along with other elements like Wisdom, Shekinah, and even The Name of God that were aspects or shadows of God that dwelt on earth while the God truly dwelt in heaven, contributed to the eventual hypostatic high christology of the Trinity.

It might be viewed as ironic that in attempting to elevate their God as so transcendent and beyond abiding upon earth they left some of later generations to coalesce and embody their two power language and divine metaphors as a literal human offspring walking around on earth!

21

NEW LIGHTS regarding d/f'd JW's!

by BoogerMan in

jw's can now talk to disfellowshipped friends & relatives, in order to encourage them back to the k.h.

and to welcome any d/f'd ones who turn up at the k.h.. https://www.jw.borg/download/?docid=1112024005&langwritten=asl.

remove the b in the borg.

peacefulpete

My mother has for years. Most of the over 60 crowd do in her congo. At first back in the 70s you had to tell them you had varicose veins , in time anyone just choose to and noone made an issue of it.

21

NEW LIGHTS regarding d/f'd JW's!

by BoogerMan in

jw's can now talk to disfellowshipped friends & relatives, in order to encourage them back to the k.h.

and to welcome any d/f'd ones who turn up at the k.h.. https://www.jw.borg/download/?docid=1112024005&langwritten=asl.

remove the b in the borg.

peacefulpete

OK, if you can stomach it, listen to the video.

21

NEW LIGHTS regarding d/f'd JW's!

by BoogerMan in

jw's can now talk to disfellowshipped friends & relatives, in order to encourage them back to the k.h.

and to welcome any d/f'd ones who turn up at the k.h.. https://www.jw.borg/download/?docid=1112024005&langwritten=asl.

remove the b in the borg.

peacefulpete

SBF....what do you understand to have changed? You could jump to 8:19 and listen for about a minute. The child is still facing a judicial committee if the first two find them 'unrepentant'. They slyly leave unsaid they would be disfellowshipped, but this is clear from previous context and what follows.

21

NEW LIGHTS regarding d/f'd JW's!

by BoogerMan in

jw's can now talk to disfellowshipped friends & relatives, in order to encourage them back to the k.h.

and to welcome any d/f'd ones who turn up at the k.h.. https://www.jw.borg/download/?docid=1112024005&langwritten=asl.

remove the b in the borg.

peacefulpete

I received a negative vote. Whoever did is encouraged to point out anything actually new. They kept repeating the idea that this was some change of procedure, some new understanding (no doubt for the authorities to be assuaged) but what really has changed? Maybe I missed it. All I heard was noise and a repetition of the prohibition to socialize/normalize relationships with those who are free of the WT......and a trivial message to the Elders to lay off the ladies in pantsuits if not on stage.

78

God, one person, or three?

by slimboyfat in

the trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.

niv.

gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.

peacefulpete

It is amply accepted by historians and scholars that neoplatonism had an immense influence on Christianity

In fact, at its core, Christianity is deeply indebted to the Greek mind. Hellenized Jewish thinkers and theologians opened the door to ideas like God having to conform to the highest notions of unity and completeness. Before this Yahweh was the God of a certain time and place, having a personality that reflected that. It was not until the Greeks that God had become absolute in every sense. Omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent human understanding, hence mysterious.

The WT and many like them endorse a dumbed down version of Christianity. To casually read the texts and understand them was pretty much impossible, as writings themselves insist the mystery of God required "God's Spirit" to reveal it. Some of the texts appear ambivalent and confusing to casual readers who inevitably come away with a simplistic conceptualization of the God being described by the various writers, some clumsy harmonization emerges.

None of the writers shared an identical conception, but all of them meant for the reader to perceive what wasn't always expressly worded. This very way of thinking and discussing theology was the greatest Greek contribution to the birth and growth of Christianity in its various forms in the first few centuries.

194

GB Update #2, March 2024: Women allowed to wear pants, no ties/coats required if not giving a talk, & now able to greet DF ones in the KH!

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

you heard me correct, this is not a joke, and it is not april fools day!

the asl portion of the governing body updated #2 (march 2024) has been released a bit early and someone caught it.

summary: .

peacefulpete

Casual dress for church???

Actually he was pointed in saying "not casual". Chinos have been worn by many guys for years but they definitely are casual wear and still not 'appropriate'.

Regarding the Disfellowshipping of minors, he made clear but unspoken that the minor would be disfellowshipped if after a shepherding call (two elders) a judicial committee is formed.
The only thing that has changed is the EMPHASIS of a shepherding call prior to the committee meeting. Nothing has changed. This was for public (court) consumption. Shepherding calls were always attempted prior to a committee forming. Listen again, unfortunately it's just smoke.

21

NEW LIGHTS regarding d/f'd JW's!

by BoogerMan in

jw's can now talk to disfellowshipped friends & relatives, in order to encourage them back to the k.h.

and to welcome any d/f'd ones who turn up at the k.h.. https://www.jw.borg/download/?docid=1112024005&langwritten=asl.

remove the b in the borg.

peacefulpete

Boy, I think way too much has been made of this. Sadly, really nothing has changed in practice, they are simply compiling and clarifying what has been done forever. Yes, relatives have always been free to invite a DF'd person (unless DF'd for apostasy) to the memorial/ meetings. The ability to acknowledge a DF'd person attending the KH has been in place for years and years. Even 40 years ago I was instructed to politely acknowledge and seat the persons in the back row. There is no change in prohibited socializing.

In my part of the world ladies have been wearing pantsuits for decades, as long as not on stage. Nothing has really changed. Regarding ties and suitcoats, similarly, in warm weather especially, they were not required unless on stage. In our missionary assignment, I learned fast to not wear a suitcoat even on stage, I nearly blacked out from the tropical heat one Sunday. The CO laughed at the idea of wearing one in that heat.

Silly things like pantsuits or beards were never the reason people leave the church. The disordinate control measures and thought limiting dogma was. Sadly, this has not yet changed.

It's actually funny that many of us who simply stopped believing the dogma are reserved for harsher treatment than those who may have harmed children or robbed a bank. Once again, the ultimate sin is questioning their authority.

86

New light on shunning?

by Mikejw in

one theory why tony was booted out was because he was a stickler for not changing the shunning doctrine.

he actually said the words we will never ever change it.. they are slowly deleting all of tony’s videos and now losing court cases and losing government hand outs in places like norway.. it’s looking very likely they will release new light on shunning policy after losing this latest one in norway.. .

what are the odds they coincidentally get new light from jehovah and lighten up their shunning policy ?.

peacefulpete

I don't recall any relaxing of the DFing position in the 70's, tho perhaps some read into something to that effect on a local level. In fact something I've brought up before was the NewLight of treating unbaptized published "As Disfellowshipped" if they were judged in a committee to have been guilty of something that would have resulted in disfellowshipping had they been baptized. I lost a good friend who at about 12 years old was a victim of this policy. Not long after lawsuits followed, and new light reversed that specially abusive policy.

56

Old Greek Daniel's Son of Man

by peacefulpete in

again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.

the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?

or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.

peacefulpete

Yet we know from both 1 and 2 Maccabees that in the second century B.C.E. a group or party developed, associated with the Maccabees, who called themselves Chasidim, as reflected in the Greek term asidaioi (faithful).

Reciting Psalm 30 on Chanukah: A Biblical Custom? - TheTorah.com

Daniel’s apocalypse offers a perspective of the events leading up to Chanukah that differs markedly from that of First and Second Maccabees. While the latter books take the perspective of the Maccabees, a political group of guerrilla fighters, Daniel reflects the point of view of some of the scribes, the “knowledgeable among the people (maskilim).” A fragile alliance formed between these two groups, but much distrust as well.....What actually happened may have been unimaginable to Daniel’s more passive group: the Judeans won. After a protracted campaign, Antiochus’ beleaguered successor, Lysias, entered into negotiations with the Maccabees, which led to the independent state ruled by the Maccabees and their successors. It was at this time that the rededication of the Jerusalem temple, the event that Chanukah celebrates, occurred. The unknown authors of the apocalyptic visions never wrote the end of the story, or if they did, it was not preserved.

The Lead up to Chanukah in the Book of Daniel - TheTorah.com

As much as I dug, I found no 'consensus' that the book of Daniel was written by the Maccabees themselves. It would seem to answer more questions if we conclude that the author/s were 'associated' with the Maccabees but having clear differences regarding the use of literal swords. It probably sounds pedantic but my subtle difference of opinion seems sound. Many commentators have observed and elaborated on the distinctly different outlook of the would-be martyrs of Daniel and the must-be warriors of 1 Maccabees.

The Book of Daniel is generally agreed to have been written at some point during the persecutions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, around 167–165 BCE. Compared to the more secular stance of 1 Maccabees that advocated direct military action under the leadership of the Hasmonean family, Daniel appears to have a more spiritual and apocalyptic approach to the crisis, suggesting that God would directly intervene to punish the Seleucids. It appears to suggest more of a passive resistance and praises martyrdom; thus, the most important thing for the faithful was to remain 'pure' in their Judaism to maintain God's favor.... One common point of speculation is that the author of Daniel was a member of the Hasideans, or at least a good example of how the Hasideans thought. Scholars favoring this include Martin Hengel, Victor Tcherikover, and James A. Montgomery.[16][2 Hasideans - Wikipedia

1 Maccabees relates that at the start of the conflict around 167–166 BCE, some of those "who had rejected the king's command" forbidding traditional Jewish practices such as circumcision and Jewish dietary laws had escaped into the wilderness. (Qumran?) The empire's soldiers had attacked them on the Sabbath, they declined to defend themselves, and were killed. Hasideans - Wikipedia

Dan 11:33Those with insight will instruct many, though for a time they will fall by sword or flame, or be captured or plundered.
34Now when they fall, they will be granted a little help, (Maccabee initial campaigns) but many will join them insincerely. (perhaps a reference to a group of Hasidim that, after the massacre, decided to join the Maccabean army mentioned in 1 Macc 2 :42,43)

Perhaps this betrayal of their pacifist stance, emboldened the Hellenist High Priest Alcimus (appointed by Antiochus) to feign a peaceful confab with a group of them, and executing the trusting bunch.

Then a group of scribes appeared in a body before Alcimus and Bacchides to ask for just terms. The Hasideans were first among the Israelites to seek peace from them, (the Seleucids) for they said, 'A priest of the line of Aaron has come with the army, and he will not harm us.' Alcimus spoke peaceable words to them and swore this oath to them, 'We will not seek to injure you or your friends.' So they trusted him; but he seized sixty of them and killed them in one day (...) Then the fear and dread of them fell on all the people, for they said, 'There is no truth or justice in them, for they have violated the agreement and the oath that they swore.'

— 1 Maccabees 7:12-16, 18[8]

I believe we have enough of the picture to tentatively connect the Hasidim with the book of Daniel. The further connections to Qumran appear probable.