20 Jul 09
Originally posted by Rajk999Doesn’t it also say that he’ll come on the clouds? Maybe he’ll just make a sufficient number of revolutions around the earth (however many days that will take!) that everyone will get a chance to look up and see him? Or, maybe he’ll just make himself really really big in the stratosphere so that he’ll actually wrap around the whole earth, but it’ll still look as if he’s on the clouds? But wouldn’t that distort his features beyond recognition? (Ooops, I forgot. Nobody today knows what he actually looked like&hellip😉
Do you claim to know what form he is in .. man or spirit?
He said ".. every eye will see him" END OF STORY.
Several places said He will be seen. Nobody will miss it.
You need to stop trying to fit the Bible to suit the JW doctrine.
It supposed to be the other way around.
Or—could this be some mystical/spiritual thing, expressed in allegorical terms? But, then maybe there’s a whole lot in the various writings collected into the Bible that is allegorical? But that would mean either (1) that we have to take the responsibility to dig behind the allegories to determine for ourselves what existential truths they might be referring to; or (2) that we need to just sacrifice our minds on the altar of acceptance (in an act of “cognitive subservience” ), and try to make ourselves believe as hard as we can whatever whoever has taught us that we must believe the Biblical texts mean.
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdOr how about with the eyes of understanding and seeing the signs and effects of his presence as the apostles asked of him? They understood that he would not come back in the flesh. Again a couple very important points that all are missing is, if he came back in flesh what would keep him from being killed again, and he sacrificed his life for us to have the chance to get back to physicle perfection and have the chance to live forever as Adam was supposed to. If he's coming back wouldn't that make his first apperance for nothing?
Doesn’t it also say that he’ll come on the clouds? Maybe he’ll just make a sufficient number of revolutions around the earth (however many days that will take!) that everyone will get a chance to look up and see him? Or, maybe he’ll just make himself really really big in the stratosphere so that he’ll actually wrap around the whole earth, but it’ll still l ...[text shortened]... rd as we can whatever whoever has taught us that we must believe the Biblical texts mean.
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by galveston75It says the second time He is coming but not in reference to Salvation but Judgment. His sacrifice is already complete. (Can't fing the scripture but it's there)
Or how about with the eyes of understanding and seeing the signs and effects of his presence as the apostles asked of him? They understood that he would not come back in the flesh. Again a couple very important points that all are missing is, if he came back in flesh what would keep him from being killed again, and he sacrificed his life for us to have t ...[text shortened]... Adam was supposed to. If he's coming back wouldn't that make his first apperance for nothing?
Manny
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by galveston75Here’s the problem: Christians of different stripes all seem to think they have it all figured out in specific detail—and that all the others have it wrong. But each group acts as if it is really soooooo clear, that anyone who reads it otherwise is ignorant, stupid or perverse.
Or how about with the eyes of understanding and seeing the signs and effects of his presence as the apostles asked of him? They understood that he would not come back in the flesh. Again a couple very important points that all are missing is, if he came back in flesh what would keep him from being killed again, and he sacrificed his life for us to have t ...[text shortened]... Adam was supposed to. If he's coming back wouldn't that make his first apperance for nothing?
Most protestants eschew “tradition”, saying they rely strictly on scripture—but forget that which books are included (and which are excluded) was a decision made by “the tradition”. Luther started a whole new “tradition” when he invented the principle of sola scriptura, and decided to exclude the deutero-canonical books that were originally admitted as part of the canon. Since Luther, there have been a whole raft of protestant “traditions” about how to read the scriptures.
The importance of context is continually cited in how to read scripture—but there is broad disagreement about which texts should set the meaning-context for which other texts. (You have seen this clearly in the recent trinitarian versus non-trinitarian debates on here.)
A literary-critical examination of the texts indicates that there are, in the biblical corpus, different types of discourse going on: Psalms versus Chronicles Job versus Isaiah versus the synoptic gospels versus the gospel of John, etc., etc. And yet some want to treat poetic discourse as if it were the same as the discourse of logical propositions, and some want to treat all of it as if it is straightforward history…
When it says that God “stopped the sun in the heavens” in order that the day would be longer (so that Joshua’s troops could go on killing), does that mean that the author thought that the length of a day is determined by the sun going around the earth (rather than by the rotation of the earth itself)? Some biblical inerrantists have been troubled by such things, since it opens the scriptures to the question of error per se.
Some Christians will admit that Jesus’ returning “on the clouds” is metaphor or allegory, but denounce as heretical anyone who questions the historicity of the virgin birth, or takes an adoptionist view of Jesus’ sonship.
I’m not taking any sides, here, just using some examples to point out the landscape. I could go on and on.
Historian of church doctrine Jaroslav Pelikan noted that, if the word “orthodoxy” could be applied to the post-apostolic church at all in the first couple of centuries, it would have to be considered a “pluralistic orthodoxy”. Bit by bit, perhaps driven by politics as much as anything, “orthodoxy” became more and more narrowly defined: until Nicaea, then Chalcedon, then the “Great Schism” of 1054 (when Rome split from the Greek east, and the Roman Catholic Church took on identity), then Luther and Zwingli and Calvin and… and… and…
Each successive grouping—Chalcedonians versus monophysites, Protestants versus Catholics, evangelical protestants versus other protestants, everybody else versus the Greek Orthodox—thinks that they have discovered the exclusive truth of the matter. And then they seem befuddled over how anyone could be so stupid, ignorant or perverse to not see it their way.
And that was my point, in the context of what it might mean for the Christ to return, and in what form…
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdI do respect your post and your viewpoints. But if one choses to believe in the Bible and have faith in the scriptures then you can't pick and choose what you want to beleive and not believe. I know that sounds really dogmatic but it can't be any other way.
Here’s the problem: Christians of different stripes all seem to think they have it all figured out in specific detail—and that all the others have it wrong. But each group acts as if it is really soooooo clear, that anyone who reads it otherwise is ignorant, stupid or perverse.
Most protestants eschew “tradition”, saying they rely strictly on scripture— ...[text shortened]... t was my point, in the context of what it might mean for the Christ to return, and in what form…
What I'm getting at is 2 Tim 3:16 says all scripture is enspired by God. If one believes that is true and one has faith that God was involved in it's writing and has overseen it remaining true to his original inspiration to the original writers, then we have to have faith that it is still correct. Do you not agree that he would have had the power and wisdom to protect his words to us?
But if anyone doubts that he couldn't do that, then you should just close it up and forget about it.
But one very, very important thing that most don't seem to realize as to why there is so much confusion with understanding the Bible is Satan. A couple scriptures to consider about the affect he has on all aspects of the earth. 1 John 5:19, Eph 6:12, 1 Cor 10:20, 2 Cor 4:4.
So why would he not have the power to confuse the world about what the Bible says?
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by galveston75First, I disagree with your reading of 2nd Timothy. In the original Greek, there is no verb at all in 3:16, which is a subordinate clause referring to the writings (graphe) alluded to in verse 15 (as iera grammata, literally sacred letters; idiomatically, sacred writings) which Timothy knew in his childhood. So far as I know, the KJV was the first translation to insert a verb into verse 16 (neither the Latin Vulgate nor Luther’s German translation did). I might be wrong (i.e., there might well be an earlier translation that inserts a verb into verse 16).*
I do respect your post and your viewpoints. But if one choses to believe in the Bible and have faith in the scriptures then you can't pick and choose what you want to beleive and not believe. I know that sounds really dogmatic but it can't be any other way.
What I'm getting at is 2 Tim 3:16 says all scripture is enspired by God. If one believes that i ...[text shortened]... 4:4.
So why would he not have the power to confuse the world about what the Bible says?
Second, none of my point rests on whether or not the Biblical corpus is divinely inspired, or what that inspiration means. (For example, Luther obviously did not think that the deutero-canonical books included in the original canon were “inspired”; and he actually had some historical claim for removing them—they were not included in the Jewish Hebrew canon, which was not set until after the church had set theirs. But they were part of the Bible up until Luther.)
Third, this has nothing to do about what theological points you and I might agree or disagree on. The divisions over the divinity of Jesus as the Christ go all the way back. Disagreements over how scripture is properly read and understood go all the way back. Questions of allegorical readings versus historical-literal readings (and when which is appropriate) go all the way back.
The point is that intelligent, learned and faithful people have had differences from the get-go. I respect a lot of that, as I respect those whose views are different from mine. I think that I am right about 2nd Timothy 3:16; I recognize the potential for different readings, even if I think they are wrong.*
Intelligent, learned and faithful people are going to continue to have differences. They will continue to argue them. I submit that honesty requires any of the partisans in these various arguments to at least admit that their opponents likely have good ground and reason for their views (of course, that itself is tested in argument), rather than assume that they must be—as I say—stupid, ignorant or perverse (one of the three).
I respect your views as well; there are likely some that I agree with (was it you who noted that it was “a long road to Nicaea”? Even a trinitarian who has done some study of church history should agree with that statement).
______________________________________________
* I am also aware, per blackbeetle’s lessons on this, that the grammar of koine Greek can be highly problematic.
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by galveston75You already said that anyone who celebrates birthdays or Christmas cannot get salvation. Dont you think that view is a little extreme? Is that view any where near the teachings of Christ?
I do respect your post and your viewpoints. But if one choses to believe in the Bible and have faith in the scriptures then you can't pick and choose what you want to beleive and not believe. I know that sounds really dogmatic but it can't be any other way.
What I'm getting at is 2 Tim 3:16 says all scripture is enspired by God. If one believes that i ...[text shortened]... 4:4.
So why would he not have the power to confuse the world about what the Bible says?
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by vistesdThere must be hundreds of ways Christ can make everyone see him. Some religious fanatics are just blind.
Doesn’t it also say that he’ll come on the clouds? Maybe he’ll just make a sufficient number of revolutions around the earth (however many days that will take!) that everyone will get a chance to look up and see him? Or, maybe he’ll just make himself really really big in the stratosphere so that he’ll actually wrap around the whole earth, but it’ll still l ...[text shortened]... rd as we can whatever whoever has taught us that we must believe the Biblical texts mean.
I remember a particularly interesting one. Rev 7 says that 12,000 of the tribe of Benjamin would be chosen to judge. Both Robbie and Galveston claimed that nobody can find the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore its must be other people (JWs maybe) that the passage refers to. .. 😀
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by Rajk999There is a tribe of Benjamin.
There must be hundreds of ways Christ can make everyone see him. Some religious fanatics are just blind.
I remember a particularly interesting one. Rev 7 says that 12,000 of the tribe of Benjamin would be chosen to judge. Both Robbie and Galveston claimed that nobody can find the tribe of Benjamin. Therefore its must be other people (JWs maybe) that the passage refers to. .. 😀
20 Jul 09
Why can't J-Dubs (LOL) celebrate B-days ? It's a day to reflect and to rejoice on your life. The one who gave you life. Also loved ones want to celebrate your B-day. See thats whacky!! Sorry but it is. God is not going to be angry with one who celebrates Their B-day. Specially if you thank God for another year of life.
Manny
20 Jul 09
Originally posted by menace71There have been a couple postings explaining why the JW's don't celibrate birthdays. I'f you can't find it let me know and I'll send you some info on that issue.
Why can't J-Dubs (LOL) celebrate B-days ? It's a day to reflect and to rejoice on your life. The one who gave you life. Also loved ones want to celebrate your B-day. See thats whacky!! Sorry but it is. God is not going to be angry with one who celebrates Their B-day. Specially if you thank God for another year of life.
Manny