Posts by peacefulpete

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

Many years ago I posted a thread about the 'name' Jesus and whether originally the name "Jesus" wasn't understood typologically, that is, the name was honorific or symbolic. This would make a great deal of sense. In Matthew, the writer/redactor used a strange parallelism in which two names are given for the boy, both are 'prophetic' but one name sticks while the other is never repeated.

21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

It seems likely to me that at some early stage the name 'Jesus' like 'Immanuel" was understood as honorific but through the process of historization it became literalized. The typological significance of the name Jesus is often overlooked. I just posted on another old thread how Joshua (LXX Jesus) was identified with the NT Jesus in the Baptism/Jordan river scene. Joshuah the warrior (and High Priest in Zechariah) was elevated to a Messianic name. What the Joshua could/should have accomplished the new 'Joshua' would.

95

Trump Tariffs started today, Some Countries Caved in early morning.

by liam in

usa politicians in charge of the economy for the past 50 years were too stupid to understand how the economy works.

this just proves my theory, that an education on the top tier universities just sucks and means nothing in the real world, unless its in the stem education.

for 50 years usa had zero tariffs on other countries.

peacefulpete

Joey..The national debt is caused by government outspending revenues. It not due to trade deficits. The solution is a reduction in spending when possible, without creating an environment of austerity, (which triggers further loss of revenue), OR raising revenue. Again, that needs to be done so as to not trigger a drop in spending. Tax rates returned to the Kennedy/Nixon era would resolve the issue gradually, but neither party has the balls to do it.

Returning to top tax rates that existed when "America was great", letting the Trump "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" expire, including restoring the Alternative Minimum Tax thresholds could raise an additional trillion dollars in revenue without low to middle income Americans being negatively affected.

Raising the SS tax rate by .2% or changing the earnings cap from $160K to $1 million dollars/ year would address the projected shortfall. Either are estimated to result in about a trillion dollars over 10 years. Presently Elon Musk pays all his SS taxes within minutes of every new year. I think he could afford to pay for an hour or so.

95

Trump Tariffs started today, Some Countries Caved in early morning.

by liam in

usa politicians in charge of the economy for the past 50 years were too stupid to understand how the economy works.

this just proves my theory, that an education on the top tier universities just sucks and means nothing in the real world, unless its in the stem education.

for 50 years usa had zero tariffs on other countries.

peacefulpete

I didn't read all that went before on this thread but even before the election there were efforts to educate people about what 'trade deficits' are and what they are not.

Before I go to the hardware store and buy a new saw, I compare prices, convenience and quality with other stores. I might even factor in my liking the owner or desire to buy local. When I decide where to buy, it is not done with the expectation that that store reciprocate and buy something from me. I make sauerkraut. It's probably not something they want, and even if they did, I might not be the best option to buy from.

I now have a trade deficit with the hardware store. Did the store rip me off or take advantage of me? No.

A wealthy man buys more goods than I do. He may not make anything but earns his living as a doctor. has he been taken more advantage of or ripped off more because of his buying what he wants from the best supplier? No.

In simplest terms, when a wealthy nation has a trade deficit, it is evidence of a mature prospering postindustrial economy, not a crime.

When America buys luxury vanilla extract from the poor nation of Madagascar, they are not expected to match that purchase in computer tech or soybeans they don't need. They are already competing with Mexico and a dozen other suppliers and working on small margins. Because Madagascar sells us more that the poor country can buy from us, they have been hit with a 47% tariff on their goods. Your vanilla just became even more a luxury and imports from the island are almost certain to fall off dramatically, impoverishing their economy further when their crime was having a less diversified economy and being poor.

The richest nations of the world all have trade deficits with certain nations and that is normal and healthy free market economics.

Every nation makes their own policy, some are better than others. Some are based upon ignorance. Usually the damage is limited, but when the largest economy in the world makes dumb policy, the damage can be global.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

Duran...what is the Lamb’s name, and what is the Father’s name?

The 'Lamb' has many names, the Father as well. The writer of Revelation, for quick example, tells his readers that the Rider of the white horse has a number of names, including a secret one.

11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”[a] He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written: King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

Slim...The JW Christology denies the divinity of Christ/Logos. The Logos was God, it/he/she was a semiautonomous aspect of God. This was also so for angels; while they started as transformed sons/gods in El's council, they were in later fully monotheistic Hellenized Judaism, projections of God himself. Think Dr. Manhattan if you were into comics.

Bing Videos 5 min

6

Baptism on Fire

by peacefulpete in

going through justin martyr's dialogue with trypho yesterday, i found a variation on the baptism scene :.

88. and let this be a proof to you, namely, what i told you was done by the magi from arabia, who as soon as the child was born came to worship him, for even at his birth he was in possession of his power; and as he grew up like all other men, by using the fitting means, he assigned its own [requirements] to each development, and was sustained by all kinds of nourishment, and waited for thirty years, more or less, until john appeared before him as the herald of his approach, and preceded him in the way of baptism, as i have already shown.

and then, when jesus had gone to the river jordan, where john was baptizing, and when he had stepped into the water, a fire was kindled in the jordan; and when he came out of the water, the holy ghost lighted on him like a dove, [as] the apostles of this very christ of ours wrote.

peacefulpete

As mentioned above the early Diatessaron mentioned the Jordan stopping its flow, This concept was shared by other early writers. The river also was thought to have momentarily reversed course.

The Testimony of Truth describes the scene:

But the Son of Man came forth from Imperishability, being alien to defilement. He came to the world by the Jordan river, and immediately the Jordan turned back. And John bore witness to the descent of Jesus.

This text is one of many that understood the scene and its symbolism as metaphor for transition, but that is another topic.

Orthodox Christians to this day celebrate the Epiphany in part by singing a hymn called, En Iorthani Vaptizomenou Sou Kyrie (When you Were Baptized in the Jordan Lord) and dropping crosses into the Jordan. Many believe the waters momentarily reverse. The Jordan Reversed Its Flow! / OrthoChristian.Com

The obvious source of this tradition (like many if not all) is the OT. Specifically, the original Jesus (Joshua) and the crossing of the Jordan.

Hippolytus quoting a Naassene work:

This, according to them, is the spiritual generation. This, he says, is the great Jordan which, flowing on (here) below, and preventing the children of Israel from departing out of Egypt–I mean from terrestrial intercourse, for Egypt is with them the body,–Jesus drove back, and made it flow upwards.(RoAH book 5)

In this quote Jesus is the OT character who was typologically understood.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

Apparently someone did not like my last comment. What part of the comment was inaccurate? A quick search found a Simonian quote equating Moses as the Logos.

Altered, however, by Moses–that is, by the Logos–that bitter (water) becomes sweet....Hippolytus (RoAH book 6) quoting a Simonian work.

Enoch of course also was famously in the end revealed to have been Metatron aka Logos and returned to the heavenly throne.

The point simply being, in the century or more before the traditional start of Christianity, the Logos and other emanations of God were identified as manifest beings. To the extent that any character or storyline was assumed historical, the Logos was as well.

Simon is a special case in that an assumed recent historical person (and his woman Helena as 'Wisdom') was revered/worshipped as the most recent example of the Logos inhabiting human form. It is not entirely certain that Simon actually existed, but regardless, was believed to have by Simonians and by the author of Acts, who wished to diminish and denigrate the eponymous founder of a rival sect.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

However, Philo is not describing a created being but rather a divine manifestation of God's activity, functioning as an intermediary—not a literal creature.

Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. Why can a divine manifestation not be a literal creature? That is a central tenet of Christianity, is it not? What is more, we know of at least one other example of a human being identifying as the Logos, Simon Magus. If the church Fathers are to believed Simon was believed to be the Logos and also claimed the Logos had taken human form throughout history.

Clearly many Christians had no difficulty bridging the Logos concept with literal beings. If Philo himself (or his Alexandrian school) did is much debated. He certainly seems to be open to the idea of the Great Angel or other manifestations of the Logos having been literal.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

Again as has been pointed out in detail there is nothing incompatible with the Son being addressed as both God and an Angel. That is the very foundational concept that developed into a second power theology. The angel/man that was also addressed as God in the Genesis theophanies.

228

The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity

by slimboyfat in

rowan williams, the former archbishop of canterbury gave an interesting answer to the somewhat stark question, what’s the point of us existing?

as a christian, my starting point is that we exist because the most fundamental form of activity, energy, call it what you like, that is there, is love.

that is, it’s a willingness that the other should be.

peacefulpete

Blotty....As far as sophistication, there were a spectrum of conceptions of God within Judaism. No doubt for the less educated, he was seen a simple powerful patron of war or farming. That is probably why the writer of the prologue of John played off that OT phrase about 'no one having seen/perceived God'. God was something they had not perceived. The Son was understood to have unfolded/revealed an up till then 'unseen' God.

As has been extensively shown, Jews such as Philo and others had developed a very complex and lofty conceptions of deity manifest through emanations such as 'angels' and the 'Word', much akin to the writer of John's.

No, just as Kaleb said, the texts themselves do not explicit a Trinity doctrine but nor do they only describe a God that children could comprehend.