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

Notice how you two are just blabbering and not answering any of my questions. I am not saying Jesus isn't the Son of God. I am not saying Jesus isn't the Messiah or isn't God's Son or these miracles did not impress the centurion.

Peacefulpete, your statements are fine, but they don't answer any of my questions. Not a single one. It's like you ignored everything I posted.

The text reads:

After [Jesus'] resurrection [on what people normally call Easter morning] they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”

Regardless of the details, Pete, the text says these saints or holy ones came out after Jesus rose, after Jesus' own resurrection.

Since FA considers the Church Fathers as heretics, I cannot for the sake of argument introduce any of the details they claim about this text forward such as:

the "saints" are the Jewish patriarchs

the event occurred in the following order--earthquake, tombs opening, saints rising, appearances, after Easter they went to Jesus into heaven

the statement of the centurion is an "aside" that got interrupted the detail of the comment about the saints as all the centurion saw was the earthquake and perhaps the tombs in the vicinity opening, but he had no access to the Temple curtain and was not a witness to any of the saintly appearances

the risen patriarchs preached the good news of Christ as Jesus came to release them from the netherworld

These details are based on those who knew the apostle Matthew before his martyrdom. The gospel of Matthew is actually partially preserved in the writings of the Fathers, unlike the others.

However, since these details are "heresy," they must be viewed as "incorrect." Neither FA or others can introduce them to FA's approval.

So my questions:

Who are these people who came out?
Since they came out on Easter Sunday with Jesus, obviously the centurion witnessed Jesus too. You cannot claim that this is an "aside" comment as that would be heresy. Why don't the other gospels mention the centurion as a witness to Jesus' resurrection? Why don't they talk about the rising of these people?
How long were these people alive that came out of the tombs?
Who did they appear to? Where did they go? And etc. See my above post.

In other words, you can't have it both ways. If the Church Fathers are wrong, this isn't a cafeteria, you need to explain why they are heretics and what makes their claims heretical. You cannot just say: They are heretics.

Next: You can't pick and choose some of their claims, such as: "Well, I like the point of the holy ones being the patriarchs..." No. That comes from the Church Fathers.

"I like the part of the centurion's comments being an aside comment interrupted by the comment about the rising of the bodies of the tombs.."

Nope, that's the Church Fathers.

If you made the claim from the start that the Church Fathers are heretics, then you have to have new and totally original answers as to all of this. Who are these people? What? Where? When? How?

You can't pick and choose what you see as fact and fiction without explaining yourself. Otherwise you make spaghetti, which is what you just did.

And you aren't answering anything. Just blabbering. Who cares how a text was made, etc. When a person asks questions, if you don't answer them, you failed. Get it? It means you cannot answer. I gave a lot of questions--AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER ONE OF THEM...WHY NOT?

Don't back yourself into a corner because you are too stubborn to let go of your point of view because you have to be right.

I am through with you and this. Enjoy being Jehovah's Witnesses, because that is what you still are.

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

FrangrantAddendum:

we know this messenger is jesus because he looks so much like his father....

I am sorry, but what type of Fresh-out-of-the-Watchtower-culty reasoning is this?

We know because "he looks so much like his father"?

What?

Since when do we know what God looks like?

I guess John 1:18 can be thrown out.

Maybe FA is thinking of John 14:9 ('if you've seen me...'), but then we might as well be going down the road of Mormonism, being 'made in the image of God' (Ge 1:27) as that being literal and meaning God has genitals and has sex with a spirit Goddess and gives birth to spirit children through her spirit sex organs like earthly women, right? Pass the Golden Plates, I need something to put my dinner on.

I might as well read the August 2024 Watchtower and believe that it is inspired of God than believe FA's reasoning.

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

Besides the fact that FA has no problem with Aqwsed translating the Greek word HAGION as "saint" but won't allow me to do (claiming that when I do it that the use of the term "saint" is incorrect), let us say for the sake of argument that the above does work.

There is are several problem besides the above paradox of FA flip-flopping.

The text reads as follows:

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”--Matthew27:51-54, NRSVue, italics added.

According to Scripture these "bodies of the saints" did not "come out of the tombs" until "after the resurrection" of Jesus.

This creates a series of questions:

Did these holy ones or "saints" rise after Jesus death or after Jesus rose on Easter morning? Or did they rise due to the quake and the ripping of the Temple curtain?

And after they rose, did the centurion witness this event? Was this what he was speaking of? If this is so, did he also witness the resurrection of Jesus? Why not? Or why did he? Or is this just speaking of the centurion speaking of witnessing the earthquake and subsequent events, not necessarily all the events listed?

The other gospel writers, including Jewish and secular historians (like Josephus) are silent regarding this event. So explain:

Who is being raised? How long were they raised? To where? What kind of body? Since none of these people could have exercised faith in Jesus before, could they have entered heaven? How were they able to therefore rise? Explain the theology?

Who were these witnesses and what did they witness according to Matthew 27:53?

These "saints" had to have been raised on Easter morning after Jesus according to Colossians 1:18, especially if they were not disciples of Jesus in some manner. Explain.

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.