Posts by KalebOutWest

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

FragrantAddendum:

Διαβάζω ελληνικά πάνω από 30 χρόνια. Έχω γνωρίσει ανθρώπους σαν εσένα. Νομίζεις ότι είσαι έξυπνος. Αλλά έχεις κολλήσει σε ψεύτικες σκέψεις. Μάλλον χρειάζεστε υπολογιστή για να το μεταφράσετε.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

FA writes:

the mt 27 thing where it says the bodies came out of the graves and were seen was a flesh and blood resurrection like the ones elijah and elisha did - they weren't "spirits" who appeared like ghosts or something--Italics added.

That is incorrect.

The text does not use the word "resurrection."

Matthew 27:52 reads:

καὶ πολλὰ σώματα τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθησαν

And many bodies of the sleeping saints rose

The word "resurrection" does not occur.

About these "saints" verse 53 says they "appeared to many" but does not say they were 'seen as flesh and blood' as you claim.

Various account in the Fathers, on the basis of these verses, I repeat, the Church Fathers themselves who you owe the very preservation and canonization of the New Testament to, claim that these 'appearences' were likely "apparitions" if they did occur at all.

Nowhere in the Biblical text, and nowhere in the Fathers do we read of a resurrection of these "saints" being "flesh and blood" and that these were seen as you state.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

The word "resurrection" does not refer to the Christian belief of going to heaven after death. Instead it refers to the bodily rising from the grave at the end of time.

As "The Apostles' Creed" states:

I believe in...the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

From the original Latin:

Credo...in...carnis resurrectionem.

Which is literally: "physical" or "bodily resurrection."

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains:

By death the soul is separated from the body, but in the resurrection God will give incorruptible life to our body, transformed by reunion with our soul. Just as Christ is risen and lives for ever, so all of us will rise at the last day.--CCC 1016.

The Greek word "resurrection" does not mean to come back to life as a spirit person after death. The word means "to stand up, again," as in "physically."

While my writing this is not to say this reflects the religious beliefs of my Jewish community, Thayer's, Strong's, and others will agree with the creed and the CCC that it means a physical rising of the body, a reanimation of what has been put to death. This is why the Greeks laughed at Paul when he mentioned "resurrection" as recorded at Acts 17:32 because they believed in a spiritual afterlife, not a physical one.

The author of Matthew was referring to the resurrection. The Church Fathers wrote that this event did not occur on a grand scale. Therefore this verse, the Church Fathers wrote, must be speaking of enjoying the Beatific Vision.

35

Hey, Regarding the "Resurrection" thing and the WT denial of the Mt 27:51-53 incident...

by FragrantAddendum in

so according to bible.

elisha's bones were there when jehovah resurrected some other dude.

jesus could heal from a distance by power of god.

KalebOutWest

The phenomena being mentioned in Mt 27:53 corresponds to the Jewish apocalyptic writings and expectations of the day.

While the text is short and thus obscure, some of the Church Fathers believe that this passage describes the liberation of the just souls who, according to Second Temple theology, "waited in limbo at the entry of Sheol" but no further. In other words, it is telling the religious truth that the Patriarchs received their full reward at this point and perhaps some appeared before others and bore witness to Christ.

Even if none of them literally appeared, early exegetical writers seemed to agree that Matthew was saying that all the just of the Old Testament from that moment on entered with Jesus into their heavenly glory.

25

What is that?

by Achille in

.

KalebOutWest

It's common Jewish practice, as written in the Talmud:

"Rabbi, how much do you charge for a circumcision?" And the Rabbi says, "Not much, I just keep the tips."

Avoid those budget circumcisions...I hear they're just a rip-off!

There was an old mohel, Dr Carvel, who did circumcisions, but really was past his prime. One day he was asked to a home to perform his job where a family and guests were waiting anxiously outside, while the baby was inside. The mohel goes into the home where the baby is, and in a few minutes the baby starts crying. The mohel comes out and asks the father: "Do you have a hammer." The father goes out to the garage and brings back a hammer and hands it to the mohel. The mohel goes back in. The baby continues to cry and the mohel comes back out, asking the father: "Do you have a chisel?" The father turns to the crowd. Everyone looks puzzled. The father runs to his shed and gets a chisel and gives it to him. A few moments later in the midst of more baby cries the mohel returns and asks the father: "I need pliers, a screwdriver, and a hacksaw." So the father, in desperation, asks: "What the hell are you doing to my son?" The mohel looks at the father, puzzled: "Your son?! I'm just trying to get my instrument bag open."

13

There is no 1900 year old faithful and discreet slave

by Longlivetherenegades in

now that the long-expected kingdom had become an established reality in heaven, surely its growing interests in the earth after 1919 would not be left in the hands of a novice organization of spiritual babes.

and that proved to be true.

it was the 1900-year-old “faithful and discreet slave,” the old christian congregation, that was entrusted with this precious kingdom service.

KalebOutWest

The above proves something very true and inarguably about Jehovah's Witnesses: they are an ad-hoc religion.

They say and make up things as they go.

That why there are no saints or real heroes of their religion. There is nothing to really fight for or standup for. Nothing is permanent.

Imagine Joan of Arc fighting for a cause that, well, was not there, because it could not be pinned down. It changed or could change at any moment, any second. There would be no Joan of Arc!

Superman: he fights for truth, justice and for--scratch that, we are changing our mind...we used to believe in that. Now it's accuracy, sensitivity, and having it your way. Wait! Scratch that too. We are changing that as well...

There's really nothing to believe in but the leadership that tells you at every single moment what is new to believe in. Like the latest switch on "new light" and beards and slacks, and the missing August issue of the Watchtower magazine that (idiotically) has got everyone on "pins and needles" (but is probably just a means to get very high hits on their website to get people to come back every few days to keep checking when the August issue has been released or something).

They have an audience held captive that can't and won't think for itself, used to the "ad-hoc system," addicted to constant change, nothing truly to believe in, that goes out to preach "join us," but then its members wonder why people won't join them...

Why would anyone join you? There's nothing to believe in, you idiots! You keep changing things! Why would anyone join a system with constantly changing beliefs? That means there is nothing there!

Totally and utterly brainless for the brain-dead!

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

I am Jewish. Jews aren't Christian, and don't believe in Jesus.

I am getting all these odd replies, such as if I am trying to be dismissive or claiming "this group" either wrong or right.

Why are you debating this at all? What is the point? What will it do in the end? Will it change things? Will it stop people from believing in something? Will it prove what you believe today? It doesn't change anything or even prove your points.

Now, as a Jew, it isn't normal to sit there and tell people: "Hey, the Trinity is what the status quo." I grew up in the Watchtower. I wasn't born in. I only stayed for a little under 10 years, thankfully, but I was there long enough enough to know that the Trinity and the claims of a Jew are not expected to click.

I'm not trying to advance my personal views as a Jew here, obviously. If that were the case, I wouldn't care whatsoever. But how much investment do most people have in their own arguments when they write things?

Again, a Watchtower thing: only capable of seeing things from one's own point of view.

WHY IS JESUS CONSIDERED GOD?

While the written Gospel themselves are not the basis of the stories, the memories of the Apostles of what Jesus did of could do something described in a Divine Psalm about God played an important factor. The narrative was later written into the various canonical accounts, more or less as so:

Leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat just as he was. And other boats were with him. A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up. Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. They woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Quiet! Be still!” The wind ceased and there was great calm. Then he asked them, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” They were filled with great awe and said to one another, “Who then is this whom even wind and sea obey?” They came to the other side of the sea, to the territory of the Gerasenes.--Mark 4:36-5:1.

The account, reported in Matthew 8:18, 23-37 and Luke 8:22-25 ending with the "Who is this?" is a reference to the Jewish prayer of Psalm 107:

Some went down to the sea in ships, / to trade on the might waters. / These have seen the deeds of the Lord, / the wonders he does in the deep.
For he spoke and raised up the storm-wind, / tossing high the waves of the sea / that surged to heaven and dropped to the depths. / Their sounds melted away in their distress.
They staggered and reeled like drunkards, / for all their skill was gone. / Then they cried to the Lord in their need, / and he rescued them from their distress.
He stilled the storm to a whisper, / and the waves of the sea were hushed. / They rejoiced because of the calm, / and he led them to the haven they desired.--Psalm 107:23-30.

This was one of the earliest signs of divinity remembered in the Church because of the impression it had directly on the Jewish mind. As Amy-Jill Levine wrote in the Jewish Annotated New Testament in the footnote to the Matthew narrative: "Matthew portrays Jesus, like God, as lord over nature, thus surpassing Jonah." The sign was meant to be two-fold to the Jewish mind: greater and more powerful than the prophet Jonah, who could not overcome the storms he was riding over, and someone far greater.

On Shavuot, what is translated as "Pentecost" in Greek, another sign to the Jews would take place (all this was important because the Church was still a congregation of Jews).

Shavuot was the annual celebration after counting the Omer, fifty days from the day after Passover, where a special offering was brought to the Temple. But it came to mean something more. It developed into the day the Jews celebrated the moment God gave the Law Covenant to Israel on Mt Sinai after the Exodus. The stories of how the nation stood before God's fire and hearing his voice thunder down his commandments was often observed by the reading of the entire Torah on this day, so crowds from everywhere would gather in groups to hear it read from the early morning till evening.

When the Christians gathered and the Holy Spirit poured itself upon them on Shavout, it did so with a loud sound, like a strong wind storm, and the room that the Christians were in saw "tongues as of fire" or in other words another manifestation of God's voice now manifesting itself no longer from the heavens but in each individual Christian who was able to preach to the crowds who came to hear the Torah read (which was done in Hebrew, which most Jews learned regardless of their nationality--which is why such a multilingual group could be gathered together).

Instead of Hebrew, the Christians were able to 'speak in their own tongues about the mighty acts of God.'--Acts 2:1-11.

This event is just one of the many reasons the Church came to view the Holy Spirit as God. At Mt. Sinai, God was the Burning Bush and later Theophany of flame celebrated annually (even today) as Shavuot or Pentecost. So when the Holy Spirit came upon the Church in a similar manner on the same day during the time of the reading of the Torah, this was one of the reasons why the Spirit is considered God.

I can go on and on. But now it is your turn to show why these points are not so. How these points are just mistakes by the Christians from long ago. Trintarians don't care about what you are discussing.

And these two points are just two. This is how Trinitarians come to understand and see the Trinity--not Bible verses per se. They see Jesus match God in experiences. They see the Holy Spirit act like God from the past. I can go on and on and on. I studied this for the past 30 years--and I am Jewish! You should spend time studying everything, not just things to fit your own narrative.

So let's hear it....Come on. I can do this all day. I'm on vacation.

Is it me? Is it the Trinity? Or it a scar? Am I just reducing you or your views? What is it? A Jew doesn't have anything invested in the Trinity. I don't care what you believe. Am I against you? Am I really an enemy? Or am I just an academic writing from an academic point of view? Evil or academic?

The problem is, you care every bit what you are typing about, right? And that comes from the Watchtower. That is the problem. You have yet to let that go.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

Slimboyfat

Earnest is very knowledgable about the transmission of the NT text ....The point I made, and that Earnest agreed with, is that scholars have pointed out that the scribe of the famous Sinaiticus Codex saw fit to change the text in his copy during the crucial period in 4th century when Jesus was being elevated to the Trinity. As Juan Hernández says, the text was apparently viewed as a “problem” in that crucial period.

I taught manuscript transmission along with working as acting as the editor for a religious publication for 2 years. Amount of knowledge on a subject notwithstanding, the point is that those who attempted to make any changes to the text were:

1. Not affecting the foundation of the dogma itself since the dogma was not founded upon the text in question let alone New Testament Canon.

2. Revelation is a late work not known to the early Church and not a logical choice for debate anyway for the Trinity dogma.

3. The Trinity is a Christian "mystery," in other words a revealed truth, based upon the Apostolic Fathers' understanding and experience of Jesus and life in what they called the "Spirit." The dogma would become a formal creed years before a canonical library was created by and for the Church that would even set the Book of Revelation aside in the first place, let alone have some attempt to change its wording because it suddenly had any authoritative status (something it did not have prior to the Trinity dogma being formulated).

You are arguing a dogma not affected by a text that was canonized after the Trinity was invented--a dogma that was not based on the text in question.

It doesn't matter anyway. I keep telling you and others that you are going in circles, but the Watchtower residual in some of us keeps some of us arguing.

This is why I say we should be very angry about what's been done to us. The effects of this cult are not easily wiped away. There is not even a reason to argue here, but the desire to fight, the "us against them" instilled by Watchtower won't let some drop swords and shield.

It doesn't matter. Your argument doesn't matter one bit. It never, ever did. You are motivated not by evidence but but an emotional scar. We all have our own. This might be yours. We all have our own.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

If the trinity is such a fundamental doctrine, why doesn't the Bible...

This is the foundational problem that likely cannot ever be solved because we are talking to people who were exposed to the Watchtower religion (as I assume we all were), which was a cult that brainwashed people.

Not all of us move away from it at the same pace. It teaches suspicion, automatic hatred and prejudice (if not outright bigotry) for those who teach traditional beliefs, and instills individuals with a mistaken sense of a better understanding of academic scholarship than academics.

Unless you are an academic, your qualifications with religion is that you are good at getting tricked into joining a cult or having a hard time being convinced to leave the cult you were born into.

That is not a great qualification for any of us.

Worse, the Watchtower created and offered a paradox that some obviously still carry with them: that the world was literate, that Bibles were mass produced, and that from these original Christianity sprung forth before Christendom went nuts and invented the Trinity.

The opposite is true. Until World Wars, many people around the world could not read, even in the West. It was the famous barefoot walk of Mary Jones in Wales that spurred the birth of the Bible socities that made it first possible for common folk to own Bibles in the mid to late 1800s. (That's a long time to wait for yor 1st Bible since Jesus walked the earth.) These Bible societies helped stop the widespread illiteracy in the world via the coulporters who worked for them.

The Trinity is a dogma, not a doctrine. This is very important because a dogma states a religious truth that did not form from human reasoning or resources. A doctrine is often found via texts or can be explained, but a dogma cannot.

The Trinity had to be presented in a creed format which is a statement that a dogma is under attack by a heresy. A creed offers counter arguments to those presented by heretics, not reasons for believers to consider a dogma.

The New Testament Canon itself was an answer to a different heresy that begun in the 2nd century by Marcion of Sinope who claimed that salvation was limited to a select few with special knowledge who rejected the God of Abraham and embraced his own canonical collection. Marcion claimed Paul and Luke also rejected the God of the Jews, and that Jesus himself taught such a gospel. So the Church replied by creating the New Testament Canon which raised Luke among the Apostolic works and highlighted the Pauline epistles above the Petrine. This was not to create a source for doctrine, but to end the Marcionist movement. An entire work by Tertullian exists on this called "Against Marcion."

While one might indeed find texts indicative of the Trinity formula such as Matthew 28:19, the dogma of the Trinity came before Matthew could be officially cited as an authoritative text for Christian doctrine.

Not that anyone could or would, as people who were not scribes generally did not read or write. And until the mid to late 1800s, common people did not have the means to own a Bible.

Once they did, especially in America, it led to the foundation of the American Bible Society. At the same time another event in American history took advantage of the sudden surge in Bible distribution: the Second Great Awakening.

While there were some advantages to this period in the USA ( the spread of literacy and the Methodist religion to the West), it brought disaster to many like the Great Disappointment, the rise of Mormonism, and an attempting copycat of the great Foreign and American Bible Societies, Charles Taze Russell.

To try to fight what is ingrained about the Bible in so many is impossible. Why? Like the Trinity "mystery," it is more a feeling for many that somehow the old Watchtower formula of "Bible first" must be true. It's impossible and doesn't matter anyway because we live in a reality where to be Christian is, generally speaking, to be Trintarian, like it or not.

And that is the problem. Like holidays, Watchtower teaches people to dislike it, to hate it, like the way so exJWs hate Christmas carols even though they have not been a Witness for many years now.

You might be in the minority, and that is fine, but it won't make the majority incorrect. It doesn't work that way. We are not in the Watchtower anymore. If you want to be Christian and unitarian, that does exist. It's a small number, but that is why there is the word "unitarian."

But you don't change history in the face of your choice of beliefs. It's like my people, the Jews. Jews don't believe in Jesus at all. (I barely believe in my own people.) But Jesus was real. Resurrected? Maybe. Why not! Jews go one way, Christians another. It doesn't change history.

Just because we might not belive in the Trinity does not change the fact that the actual Christians that came from the Apostles are the Trinitarians. They were not led by the Devil or trying to twist things like the Watchtower teaches. This is their genuine, Apostolic faith.

Like Christmas carols to some exJWs, this will never, ever sit well for some. All the evidence in the world will not work. It's called an "emotional scar." This is where you blame the cult, not the Trinity.

171

Alteration of Revelation 3:14 in the 4th century to support the emerging Trinity doctrine

by slimboyfat in

in an earlier thread another poster asserted that there is no evidence that revelation 3:14 played a part in the 4th controversy that led to the trinity doctrine.

this was claimed as evidence that the description of jesus as “the beginning of the creation of god” in the verse was not understood to mean that jesus was god’s first creation.

the scholarly greek–english lexicon of the new testament & other early christian literature 3e (2001) by bauer, arndt, gingrich, and danker, in its latest edition states that “first creation” is indeed the probable meaning of the greek phrase.

KalebOutWest

Earnest

...if the Greek readers in the fourth century didn't think 3:14 referred to the first creature, why would they alter it?

The verse has not been altered. We have the original reading. Some did try to change it, but that attempt amounted to nothing. The original reading was not harmed.

Besides, the Trinity dogma is not based on this text whatsoever. The dogma was set in 325 CE at the Council of Nicea.

The New Testament Canon was set later, in 393 CE at the Council of Hippo. Revelation had just been recently approved for the Canon by Athanasius in 367 in his Easter letter as the book was questionable in several quarters and not widely known. The Trinty came first.

The Greek version of Revelation would not be the canonical version of the book for the Church either. It would be the translation into Latin by Jerome around 383. The attempt would not have affect on current critical methodology in translation either.