I have a question concerning Jesus.....

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

you are aware, presumably, that jews are not permitted to sound out these Names phonetically, but to refer to them by paraphrases and paraphrases of paraphrases, as per "not taking the Divine Name in vain", as the translation has it. we believe that hebrew is lashon ha-qodesh, the Holy tongue, whose words and letters have power in their own right. they are a direct link to the energy of the higher worlds and the Divine Names are even more so. basically, it's like keeping a photo of a loved one - you're going to treat such a thing with respect - and how much more so should we treat the Names of G!D. by avoiding pronouncing them or writing them down directly, we avoid their misuse by those who are not aware of the importance of this or do not respect this tradition. so, hypothetically, someone might be reading this thread out loud, which from my perspective would be the mystical equivalent of touching an industrial power cable, as it were, or, even worse, going to a page where the hebrew is displayed, printing it off and leaving it in an unsuitable place.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Thanks. That's interesting, that the power is in the name. How about the names given to X by other wisdom traditions? E.g. could you write or speak the name "Allah", or is the Jewish X the only way to express an experience of X? Are all the other names used by other traditions describing experiences of something other than X - or nothing?

[Mus Zibii]

Originally Posted by bananabrain

i'd be interested in hearing more about this, if you're up for it.

Sure. What about it?

[shannon]

Originally Posted by bruce

Now I'm a Jehovah Witness and I know "we" witnesses understand that people don't understand us because of the way we look at the bible.At one time I was a Baptist now forget about what church you belong and what you believe just look at this one verse and tell me what Jesus is saying in this verse.KJ 1611 edtion.John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her,touch me not for I am not yet accended to my Father ; but go to my brethen, and say unto them,I ascend unto my Father and your Father and to my God, and your God."Now by looking at what that verse says it tells me that Jesus's father is our father and that Jesus's God is our God.I can't see it any other way.It doesn't say Jesus is God or Jesus is our father it says Jesus's father is our father and Jesus's God is our God.This is from the King James 1611 edition and not The New World Translation of the Holy Scripitues.That verse is as simple as it gets and please I do not mean to offend or preach.

Rather than continue with irrelevant and confusing conjecture which does not answer your question I will simply answer your question. Rather than extract the one verse that you have and say "what about this!", it would be wise to consider all scripture.

The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (God with Us). (Is.7:14)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" John 1:1
NOTE the JW NWT incorrectly translates that as "the Word was a God" which causes all kinds of mess.

In Isaiah 9:6 NWT, Jesus Christ is called the "everlasting Father"

Is it Divine worship of the Father when Peter concludes His prayer in 1 Peter 5:10,11 with "To him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen." Yes, this is adoration and worship to the infinite God. This same doxology is given to the "Son" in 2 Timothy 4:18; 1 Peter 4:11; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5-6. A.T. Robertson states that these references refer to Christ in "Word Pictures in the New Testament" (Vol. 1, p. 126). Let us be consistent. Therefore, Christ is God.

If God and the Lamb have one Throne, one Face and one Name in Revelation 22:1, 3-4, [3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; 4 they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.] doesn't that make God and Christ equal?

Rev. 22:8-9 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9 But he said to me, "Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God"

There we have an Angel of God telling us to Worship God and not Angels. Does the WT allow worship of Jesus? Did Jesus accept worship? If Jesus is NOT God and DID accept worship doesn't that make him a false God (as the NWT implys by it's translation of John 1:1 "a God") Yet there is only 1 true God.

Other explanations are likewise possible. All persons have multiple roles in life. A man can be a father, son, and brother; a woman can be a mother, daughter, and sister. These titles describe roles or functions at a given time, as well as relationships to others.

Here are some links to research if you would like:
http://www.gospeloutreach.net/jwq.html
http://thehighwaytoheaven.com/jw_cult.htm
http://www.probe.org/docs/jehovah.html

If you want someone to talk to about this, please call a local church or a few, and let them know you'd like to speak with a pastor.

I hope this helps you with your question concerning Jesus Bruce... er not 'Jesus Bruce'... I never knew him

I work with a lady who was a JW and is now a Christian. Her mother and father are JW's and recently her mother died. My workmate was NOT ALLOWED to attend her mothers funeral by the WT. How aweful to think. Is that the community of believers you think are God's elect? To me it is heartless, and Christ was not heartless.

God Bless you.
Shannon

[Mus Zibii]

I disagree with the trinity, but finally someone replied to poor ole Bruce. Good job.

[I, Brian]

Seconded.

[Mus Zibii]

Venturing off topic, I read those links and one brought this up:

Hell is the common grave of mankind, literally sheol, where all rest in hope.
Mark 9:47-48 “if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'”

I disagree with both groups on this. Sheol is neither a netherworld nor a hell. Moreover, when hell shows up, its translated from Gehenna, an actual physical place on earth where the faithless were burned. Brian wrote a thing about this. There's no indication in the gospels to imply that the usage was symbolic for an afterlife, but rather a methaphor for faithlessness, just as Isaiah used the term.

Ironically, Muslims do use Jehenna in relating to a hades-like place underground.

[Ben57]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

And in Genesis we have the name YHWH or YHVH rendered as "Yaweh" or "Jehovah" that actually means "I Am that I Am" - being. (Ex. 3:14) Jesus uses the phrase to identify himself as well (John 8:58).

The above quote is very often missunderstood. There is actually a difference between Ex. 3:14 and John 8:58. In Ex. YHWH is stateing a fact of himself, the "I am" is a statement of identity. Jesus is not saying who he is but how long he has been "alive'. The "I am" of as recorded at John Jesus is actualy saing "I have been" in relation to Abraham. Before Abraham I have been. It is inrelation to his age not identity.

[Mus Zibii]

Eh, that's subjective. No way would a Jew of the era hear the constant 'I am'-ing and not think something of it.

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Ben57

Jesus is not saying who he is but how long he has been "alive'. The "I am" of as recorded at John Jesus is actualy saing "I have been" in relation to Abraham. Before Abraham I have been. It is inrelation to his age not identity.

The greek is ego eimi, which is "I am." It is not in the past tense.

Let me suggest to anyone who really wants to delve into the history and meaning of this passage that they review other Gnostic writings before reading this passage "literally." The "Gospel of John" is undoubtedly a Gnostic text and was one of the major teaching texts used by Valentinus. As such it is a square peg that's been jammed into the round hole in the NT Canon. As a starting point, I would reccommend beginning at the beginning with a study of Greek writings on the Logos (the "Word", as in "in the beginning was the Word"). The term has a rich history that predates the "Gospel of John" in Greek and Jewish philosophy. In particular, the writings of Heraclitus and Philo deal with the Logos. The latter is an Alexandrian Jew (described by Clement as "Philo the Pythagorean"), from whose writings we are familiar with the Therapeutae. Eusebius had much to say about Philo and the Therapeutae as well.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Here is a link to a translation of the text of Eusebius' writings on the subject of Philo from his "Church History" Book II, Chapter 17:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/npnf201...i.vii.xvii.htm

Be sure to check out the footnotes. They are also very interesting. Especially in light of our recent discussions about the author of the Markan gospel.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Abogado del Diablo

The greek is ego eimi, which is "I am." It is not in the past tense.

I meant "perfect tense".

[Mus Zibii]

Wasn't there even a brief period in Christianity when the orthodox thought John's gospel had been written by Cerinthus? The Gospel of John is a pain because it introduces the method of symbolism. In no other gospel is there the claim that Jesus' reference to the temple pertains to his body. So the literalists (dating back to Irenaeus) have a more difficult time of it as part of the canon.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

Wasn't there even a brief period in Christianity when the orthodox thought John's gospel had been written by Cerinthus? The Gospel of John is a pain because it introduces the method of symbolism. In no other gospel is there the claim that Jesus' reference to the temple pertains to his body. So the literalists (dating back to Irenaeus) have a more difficult time of it as part of the canon.

Apparently, yes. Epiphianius, in his own response to "heretics" argues against the belief that the Egyptian Gnostic Cerninthus wrote the "Gospel of John." It really didn't even have that name until Ireneaus insisted that as a small child he'd heard Polycarp explain that it was written by "John the Apostle" in Ephesus. Eusebius is ambiguous about the matter, going out of his way to point out that there were two major teachers named John in Ephesus.

The earliest citations to it were by Clement and later Origen, which suggests an Egyptian Gnostic origin. There was a major early commentary written by Heracleon, a disciple of the influential Gnostic, Valentinus. Some scholars think there were two versions - an older version that read like a Cerinthian Gnostic text, and a "revised" version more like the one we see today possibly written for the express purpose of serving as a sort of "response" to the premier Gnostic text the "Gospel of Thomas." Elaine Pagels' new book "Beyond Belief" explores this topic in detail and is an excellent read as well.

Having studied it, in my opinion the revisers didn't do a very good job of straining out the Gnosticism. Of course, as with all the Gnostic works (including Mark possibly and maybe even the Pauline epistles - see Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries"), if you don't "know" the symbolism, it's easy to miss the meaning.

[Mus Zibii]

I've always been of the opnion that all the gospels, the life-story of Jesus were a result of gnostic midrash. None of what could be called the earliest writings mention anything about a gospel Jesus, and the theology of Paul as seen in the epistles frequently seem at odds with the gospel Jesus. Early Christianity, judging from the epistles of Paul, and the Kabbalistic revelations, seem to be an overhauled Judaism, with the name 'Jesus' added later.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by Mus Zibii

I've always been of the opnion that all the gospels, the life-story of Jesus were a result of gnostic midrash. None of what could be called the earliest writings mention anything about a gospel Jesus, and the theology of Paul as seen in the epistles frequently seem at odds with the gospel Jesus. Early Christianity, judging from the epistles of Paul, and the Kabbalistic revelations, seem to be an overhauled Judaism, with the name 'Jesus' added later.

I agree that it appears to have started as the Gnostic philosophical tradition and gradually came to be dominated by a faith-based religion of the christian literalists. The myth itself is so similar to the godman myths of the "pagan" mysteries that it was almost certainly inspired by them. I think the most plausible explanation is that the Jesus tradition was started by Greek speaking Jews living in Alexandria merging the teachings of the Essenes with the "pagan" mysteries of Osiris-Dionysis and Jewish messianic prophecy and a little theology - particularly borrowing the story structure for the passion/ressurection from Psalm 22 and mythologizing the Day of Atonement when the scapegoat Azazel would carry the sins of the congregation to the animal's death.

The earliest gospels were probably written by Alexandrian Jews who liked the philosophy but wanted to remain Jewish. Paul is clearly at odds with those who intended the myth to remain Jewish - writing extensively about circumcision being unnecessary and how the Law is completely fulfilled in the act of loving one another. Not surprisingly, Paul's message spread better among gentiles than Jews. Gnostic scholars continued to teach and write about the Jesus myth, including such early eminent "church fathers" as Clement and Origen. These early Gnostics were doing something more akin to Greek philosophy than starting a faith-based religion. The philosophical meaning ultimately lost out to the faith-based religion though.

Interesting that Paul writes about Jesus as being "found in appearance as man" in Phillipians, which could be taken as an expression of the docetic "heresy." It also fits with the Islamic account of the Jews only thinking they crucified Jesus as detailed in the Qur'an.