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

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.

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

Kaleb.. ...I appreciate your detailed contribution to the discussion. I wasn't suggesting you were doing some googling. I said I had done some googling and found a few articles that suggest the Johannine timeline was an earlier creation. It has the advantage of greater Christological typology, both in the Jonah parallel as well as the Paschal lamb sacrifice.

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

Kaleb, certainly John in its final reordered and redacted form fits the description you just gave. I'm coming at this from a textual/redactional critical perspective. You probably know there are those who hold to an Ur-John priority. I'm not entirely convinced but it certainly is a possibility. Much of the assumption otherwise is rooted in the historical Jesus premise, in which a man gradually became mystically understood. The opposite direction in which a mystical template predates a historization is also possible. In which case the spiritual concepts that distinguish John might in fact predate the Synoptics.

My speculations are just fun hypotheticals. You have to admit that if the earliest crucifixion traditions intended Jesus to be like Jonah, (3 days and 3 nights) John's having him killed on Preparation makes more sense. I know John has been assumed to be the last and most 'spiritual', and in its final form, that is almost certainly the case. The final redactor/editor of John certainly knew the Synoptics. It is however not impossible, in this particular detail, John preserves an older telling of the Passion story. Doing a little googling I found a few articles suggesting as much.

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

You really don’t get simpler than that,....

The problem is you assume it was supposed to be simple. The Jews had very sophisticated conceptions of deity. I recently tried to illustrate that in another of your many anti-Trinity threads. This is what I meant about the WT 'dumbing down" the concepts of Christ as Son of God and Logos. It has broad appeal to those inclined toward simplicity, but it doesn't reflect the whole spectrum of ideas present in the OT and NT.

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

If Preparation and crucifixion was thought of as on Thurs then resurrected on ("very early the first of the sabbath/week") early Sunday (the day of the sun), the expression '3 days and 3 nights' fits.

It's all a bit of fun. The story one way or the other was changed. Was John's timeline the older version, changed later through gentile Christian confusion about the day the lambs were slaughtered? Did Josephus' reading contribute to that? Josephus as we know had a huge role in shaping Luke's Gospel........

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

Kaleb said..

According to the Talmud and Josephus, on Nisan 14, the priests would hand over the first of thousands of lambs for the Passover Seder meals beginning at 12 noon and stop (I'm sure you meant start) the slaughtering beginning at 3 pm so roasting could be....

The Wars of the Jews, 6.423

Flavius Josephus translated by William Whiston
423So these high priests, upon the coming of that feast which is called the Passover, when they slay their sacrifices, from the ninth hour till the eleventh, but so that a company not less than ten belong to every sacrifice (for it is not lawful for them to feast singly by themselves), and many of us are twenty in a company,

This is interesting.

The Synoptics specifically time the death at the 9th hour (3pm) on the day of Passover. Might the writer of Mark taken Josephus literally. As it reads (in English anyway) it could be understood that slaughter started at 3 the day of Passover.????

Another thought is that an original form of Mark did not identify the last meal as the Passover Seder but a later editor more distanced from the Jewish traditions did. Matt and Luke followed. In which case John, in this detail, might preserve an earlier form of the story.

99

What the new JW light position really is 👍

by ElderBerry in

i’m still an elder and i consider myself jw light.

as my fellow elders are.

we don’t throw our weight around like elders used to in the past, it’s all very easy going these days.

peacefulpete

Carla none of this happenes in JW land anymore, I’m not too sure it ever did actually I think you exaggerate....

Ignore this troll, he's getting jollies out of mocking our pain. I'll never understand these people.

Please just go away.

31

Watchtower SlangJamaican Patois: Gods son came fe mash up the world😂

by Diogenesister in

🤦‍♀️this 25 million different languages thing is getting ridiculous.

this link is hilarious!

they've only gone and translated into jamaican patois and boy this isn't just translation, they're literally using slang....what next?

peacefulpete

The Seventh Day Adventists preach their sectarian doctrine in well over 400 languages and dialects. The Hare Krishnas in 70 languages, Even Spong Bob Square Pants is translated into 50 languages. When you are saying something stupid it is not relevant how many ways you can say it.