Posts by KalebOutWest

18

Why worship a God that does not help!

by Witness 007 in

so god let 10 million people die in world war 2 but was too busy to help....what kind of diety does this!

if i was god i would have done something .

KalebOutWest

Why did God leave his people, the Hebrews, in slavery and bondage to the Egyptians for so long before sending them a Deliverer? Did God not hear the cries and see the suffering of his own children? Or did not God have a purpose?

Is God a genie that serves your every whim and desire or do you serve God? Are your wants and wishes supposed to be granted by God like a genie? If you want a parking space, so to speak, should God not grant it to you? And if you do not get it, does this mean God doesn't listen to your prayers or worse, does not exist?

A genie doesn't know what you are thinking unless you tell it your thoughts because it serves you. You cannot know the greater purposes of God because you serve your Creator. God is not here to grant your wishes, end the problems we cause for ourselves, change things God has set in motion just because we would rather have it different or we cannot see our place in the grand design. God is not a genie.

You don't have to believe or care or like it. This is life. If you see a problem and have the ability to fix things, fix them. That is why we are here. Instead of pointing at or blaming God or expecting God, what about you? When was the last time you changed things? Keep changing things. There may not be a life after death, so concentrate on fixing life before death for everyone.

187

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

KalebOutWest

Jeffro,

You are clearly very smart. I really mean it.

But my little "maneuver" of sorts in the last few posts was not to demonstrate any belief that I have power over you--but that when you lose your self-control, you become predictable...and you always have to have the last word and post something...even if it's just an emoji. You are far more than a predictable person.

You know facts and figures and can debate history as sharp as any knife--and I am very impressed. You are, in fact, very brilliant.

Some people are not open to be considerate with others, neither are they as capable or willing to be. All they can or wish to see is the mistakes (or what they believe to be mistakes) of others. And they actually make a sport of debating these with others.

Regardless of any failings, I see great light in you. This is what I choose to see. There is a lot that is right about you. And this is what will keep growing, I am sure, years after today.

I think people don't get a chance to see enough of who is really writing these posts. People decrease the value of the individuals to such limited context that they write such horrific things. Instead we should consider that there are real persons here, trying to say much more than the mere words they are typing.

I wish you the best in all your endeavors.

187

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

KalebOutWest

Jeffro:

...The part where you were wrong...

You're just looking for something to call me wrong because you like to correct people.

If you want to believe what you are saying, you can believe that as much as JW Scholar can believe in 607 BCE.

It pleases me for you to act this way. This is what I want you to do. You couldn't do this unless I allowed it.

In fact, I command you to reply this post.

Or any future post I make...or past.

187

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

KalebOutWest

Jeffro:

...Though there could be a long term plan to quietly abandon 607 BCE...

I am neither saying nor implying that at all.

I only say what I mean here, not more or less. Nothing between the lines.

People generally don't change their beliefs much unless forced, and then only what they must.

The ideal for most is to stick to a doctrine in some shape or form, not because they are stubborn but because they are afraid to change.

People are not comfortable with adjustments, so they won't, not that they can't, do them. The fictional character Harry Potter is brave mainly because he can change everything he believes about his situation in every story three-quarters or so into them and make immediate adjustments to these preconceived ideas, not much else. Real people don't do that. They are not courageous enough.

I was not saying Jehovah's Witnesses were going to abandon their views. I was merely saying that the date of 607 BCE is quite meaningless at this point. But will they abandon it? I don't know. I can't foretell the future. I didn't say that they would.

Reconstructionist Jews didn't abandon the term "God," but they do not believe that there is a personal God that exists or listens to prayer, yet they still insist on keeping the word in their theistic liturgy and they practice daily prayer to that God who they believe isn't listening. So it will not surprise me if Jehovah's Witnesses won't abandon 607 or 1914.

187

Insight Book LIES - then tells the TRUTH!

by BoogerMan in

it-1 p. 493 communication - "when the circumcision issue was resolved by the governing body in jerusalem......".

it-1 p. 881 galatians, letter to the - "by reason of a revelation, paul, with barnabas and titus, went to jerusalem regarding the circumcision issue; he learned nothing new from james, peter, and john, but they recognized that he had been empowered for an apostleship to the nations.

" (galatians 2:1-10).

KalebOutWest

Jeffro's got a great site on this subject and done more than enough reasoning on the matter--as others here have done in their posts here as well.

Anything else is just going around in circles for the sake of making yourself dizzy! 😵

Nobody who is a real scholar writes like JWScholar. And writing walls of material--who wants to read that?

607 BCE leads to 1914...So what? That was supposed to be the date for the End of the Gentile Times. It did not happen. The Gentile nations are still here! Armageddon did not arrive. They moved it to 1915, then to 1918, 1925, 1975, before those who were alive to witness and understand 1914 passed away, etc. And now, in the latest Watchtower it's "we don't know."

So who cares about 607 BCE anymore? In the face of all that failure and the new "we don't know" it is virtually meaningless. Believe in 607 BCE all you want. You just end up like the rest of Christendom who say "we don't know" as well, many of whom also believe these are the last days.

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.

KalebOutWest

Sea Breeze:

No one else in the history of the world has ever had the authority both to lay down his life and to raise it up again.

But this is merely a belief of Christians. Again, Chasidic Jews believe similar of the Rebbe, that he made similar or even greater and more significant claims and is now with or "one" with God.

But mere claims do not make things so or equate to authority. How does one prove that either Jesus or the Rebbe or even a Twinkie has authority from God?

You have to prove your argument in a manner that gives us positive evidence, a demonstrative method we can all witness, a clear means by which we all can rightly conclude without questioning that what you are saying is so--otherwise it's just words. It's not an argument.

It's just words like the Watchtower was always saying the world was going to end by "such and such" date. They always offered plenty of words, but nothing else. And it never happened.

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.

KalebOutWest

Postscript to my last post:

I was called away before adding this for Peacefulpete...

I do believe, however, you are on the right track in searching.

Judaism itself is not about claiming to have the truth but about the search and the process. As in mathematics, often finding out how to work the correct formula or method to find the answer is more important than knowing or claiming you have the answer.

Otherwise how will you ever learn to think for yourself.

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.

KalebOutWest

Peacefulpete:

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.

I'm not, as you know, a Christian, nor was I "Googling" around to find my conclusions. There are a lot of ideas and thus one can go on forever and never end.

I was merely explaining why Jesus died on Nisan 14 in one gospel as opposed to the others. I wasn't responding or inventing my replies for sport.

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.

KalebOutWest

The Bible teaches that Jesus’ Father is the only true God (John 17.3) and that Jesus is the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation. (Col 1.15) You really don’t get simpler than that, which is the reason why most ordinary Christians perceive Jesus and God in those terms, despite what the later Trinitarian creeds say.

As a Jew, I have to agree that while the Hebrew Bible does not teach the Trinity, the New Testament, while not explicitly expressing the creed, does set the stage for the doctrine of the Trinity or at least the divinity of Jesus Christ.

It's not where the doctrine originated, as the creeds and doctrines of Trinitarian support grew during the same period that the New Testament canon was still being shaped, but it is hard to counter many of the outright texts in Christian Scripture and the works of the Church Fathers where Jesus is addressed as God.

This is the basic reason Jews do not believe Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah--not that he failed to fulfill all his work (a second coming or a messianic priest could indeed do these things missed, if any), not that he died (Simon Bar Kokhba and the Rebbe, both messianic figures, died too), not even the stories of his resurrection (that would be evidence of divine approval, no?).

The main reason Jews don't accept Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah is that we would have to worship him as God, because that is the claim--and we don't believe people can be God or God can be people.

The point is, Christians do. And that means the Trinity is and has been a certain and central belief of Christianity from the beginning--otherwise, why the stumbling block? I mean, a messianic figure that rises after dying on the third day sounds cool. Right? (But I have to break the first of the Ten Commandments if I follow Jesus according to Judaism...eh...)

Don't worry Christians. Jews generally accept the Trinity as technically a theological form of monotheism--meaning we do not view Christian worship as heathen or Pagan. (It's just not a form we Jews are allowed to engage in.) But, it has always been what makes a Christian Christian.

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.

KalebOutWest

The author of the Gospel of John likely changed the chronology of Jesus' crucifixion for theological and symbolic reasons rather than historical ones.

"John" wasn't trying to confuse an audience that obviously already knew the story of Jesus. What he was doing was trying to deepen the significance by playing off of tropes and symbols.

For example, the so-called "Kelvin Star Trek" films introduced an alternate "reality" for Star Trek that reveals itself subtly, in small steps in the story, making fans who are watching feel a great sense of familiarity until a main character, the mother of Spock, dies while his home planet is destroyed--something that can't happen for Star Trek to be "Star Trek."

The Gospel of John is a similar type of work. It is not attempting to be another retelling of the Jesus story every Christian knows. This author claims to be (or know) the apostle who witnessed everything and everybody, and seems quite old. He's come to understand things from a spiritual perspective--and it's this perspective, telling readers what the "Jesus experience" means, is what he does or is trying to do--as opposed to what happened.

This is similar to Matthew. Matthew wrote what Jesus "meant" for a Jewish Christian audience, as the "New Moses." So John does the same thing, writing the story as if Jesus were the Divine "Word" in control of everything from beginning to end, a physical man with a divine meaning, not merely Jesus the Christ.

Jesus first miracle was not turning water into wine at a wedding, for instance. And Jesus could indeed be recognized (though in John, the disciples don't know who he is) after his resurrection, but these two things are obviously tied together. Think. Since the author is not being literal, he's saying "what" about his subject? Especially since he's beginning and ending his Gospel about Jesus like this...the Gospel about the Word of God.

And when the bishops closed the Christian canon of the New Testament, they purposefully placed John as the last Gospel and the Revelation to John, a book of signs, last. Why? There is a significant reason.

It all has to do with why John moved Jesus's death around. It's symbolic. The author teaches in signs and symbols. From the first "sign" at the wedding at Cana to this moment and beyond, the author sees Jesus providentially in control of his life, and the author teaches us this, even if he has to change the days, times and literal events surrounding Jesus's life to do so.

He's not playing with the events of Jesus's life. On the contrary, the author is using them to teach his audience what he knows about God.