by BoogerMan 78 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
"We are not trying to create a new language".
The same way you would hear Witnesses say at the doors " we aren't here to change your religion".
Then why in the hell are they out there doing this preaching work?
None other than 'obligation'.
In other words lying for the Borg
It probably got lost in the lengthy post, but, if the process of adoption and adaptation, suggested by a number of scholars over the years, is correct, "Babylon" meant Jerusalem for the Jewish writer but then a later Christian expanded upon this, first allowing the identification stand then pointedly reapplying it to Rome.
The correct view is that Babylon represents the city where Christ was crucified...or apostate Israel and the law, versus the New Jerusalem representing the church
"Revelation is a tale of two cities. The subject of Revelation is the same as that of Galatians 4:21-31—two women/cities representing two wives. In Galatians we are explicitly told that these “things are symbolic, for these are the two covenants” (Gal. 4:24). It is exactly the same in Revelation. The New Jerusalem bride is a betrothed wife (Rev. 19:7); harlot Babylon is a widowed wife (Rev. 18:7). The unfaithful widowed wife (who became a widow when she had Jesus killed) is destroyed and then the betrothed bride becomes married (Rev. 19:1-11).3
The destruction of Jerusalem not only caused an economic crisis, it also had major religious implications. With the demolition of the Temple, major aspects of the Law of Moses, including animal sacrifice, could no longer be practiced. God seemed to have rejected the old covenant system and its people.
1After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2With a mighty voice he shouted: “Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great!4 She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. 3For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries.”
I beleive there will be some sort of end-times collaboration between the some parts of Christianity and Islam and maybe others as well. The whore of Babylon is definitely an evil world system, controlled by the Antichrist, during the last days before Jesus’ return, and has religious connotations. It is most likely an end-times religious system or confederacy, probably revolving around some sort of cult leander or anti-christ.
Xenu factors in, too, somehow, I’m sure.
It is likely Rome, but there is a possibility that the writer is using the image to refer to apostasy/traitors who persecute the Church in general, and may include apostate Jerusalem. We understand this from the earliest references to it in Christian history.
Since the Apocalypse of John was very late to the inclusion into the canon of the New Testament--practically unheard of in Christendom itself until the canon was officially closed by Athansius in 367 CE --the first commentary on it was not written until around 290 CE by Victorinus of Pettau, a bishop who was matryred by Diocletian.
It was treated as, well, the title suggests--an "apocalypse" and not a "forecast." It talks about the visions being allusions to persecutions and intrigues already suffered by the church at the time of its composition.
To further "blow the minds" of Jehovah's Witnesses, it makes reference to the Catholic teaching of the "restored" earth. Yes, the Catholics (like the Jews) have always talked about "Paradise restored." For instance, every Sunday at Mass they recite the words "I believe in...the resurrection of the body" (Apostles' Creed) or "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." (Nicene Creed) Both this commentary from the 3rd century and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church talk about the "paradise" to come where the physical reuniting of soul and body will take place in a recreated universe in reference to the last chapters of Revelation.--See CCC 1046, 1047.
I recall how many Jehovah's Witness who became converts to the Watchtower religion simply on the "paradise" claim that "they showed me this from the Bible, which was so clearly a Christian teaching, so they must be the only true religion because they were the only ones teaching this," yet it was far from being a unique teaching. Like everything else Watchtower, it was stolen and repackaged.
I remember hearing from Bart Ehrman once (though he was talking from his experience with Fundamentalism and his disappointment from it) how he was startled to learn from reading Victorinus and the Church Fathers on Revelation and realizing that they did not believe it had anything to do with the future, like he had always been taught, but the past--except for those very last chapters--and then startled to hear about some "restored paradise" instead of heaven.
This view, of Victorinus and the Church Fathers, is called by academics the preterist view. It maintains that much of the book concerns the events within the lifetime of the author and his readers.
There are other views that developed afterwards:
The understanding of an apocalypse is not meant to be "set in stone," so to speak--though it is not a prophetic forecast. Jewish writers hoped future readers could get encouragement from it when they faced difficult times as well since the main thrust of an apocalypse was that justice would always prevail.
This does not mean the writers knew that the details of their written visions were specific future forecasts of events. It was against both the Mosaic Law and Christian teaching to try to foretell the future or engage in divination. A writer of an apocalype was not necessarily the same as a prophet or a seer, and Christians often confuse the roles and the genres.
P.S. have you formulated an opinion regarding source critical analyses that see the work as a compilation of Jewish and Christian elements?
Peacefulpete:
P.S. have you formulated an opinion regarding source critical analyses that see the work as a compilation of Jewish and Christian elements?
Do I have a personal opinion? Not a personal one, no.
As to whether there was such a thing as "Jewish and Christian elements," that would depend on your exact definition on those terms.
In the United States, due to the influence of Protestantism, people tend to see religion in the terms of "denomination," but in the rest of the world, especially in the East where Judaism started, religion is more like something built into society that one acts out and less of something you believe in or sign up for via a creed.
It was not until the late 1800s that Reform Judaism claimed that its branch was a "denomination," a claim that today it no longer really stands by. Judaism is actually a culture or civilization that developed a religion during its history, a religion that has had worldwide influence and has lasted for a very, very long time.
But Judaism is not that religion that it created, anymore than Judaism is Jewish food, Jewish music, Jewish language, Jewish mythology, etc.
Christianity is actually an offshoot of Judaism. Its foundational elements are Jewish. ("Messiah" is a Jewish concept, on which Christianity is based, for example.)
The Book of Revelation is an apocalypse, which is a Jewish genre.
The text employs Jewish tropes and Hebrewisms, inspired by other books in the same genre such as 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch, the Apocalypse of Abraham, and--lest anyone forget--the Book of Daniel.
And Christianity, at the time of its writing, may have seen itself as nothing more than another sect of Judaism. As the Acts of the Apostles tells us, 'many thousands of believers among the Jews were all zealous followers of the Law.' (See Acts 21:17-26.) Since Victorinus and the Church Fathers favored the preterist view that Revelation dealt with the time suffered by the disciples during the author's writing, there is a possibility that the "Great Harlot" represents Jerusalem, which the Jewish Christians felt had proved itself unfaithful to God, and the call to "get out of her" and the description of her destruction involves the Roman attack on Jerusalem when the Temple fell in 70 CE. Rome did not fall during the time of the writing of the Book of Revelation.--Revelation 18:4, 9-10; compare Jesus' words at Matthew 24:15-21.
So is this a "Christian" work? Or is this a "Jewish" work? Did Christianity create works that were free of Judaism, and did these become part of the New Testament?
I guess it depends on how you, personally, look at things.
Babylon (Babel) was the original kingdom that setup it's opposition to God. It said they were the masters of themselves apart from God. Thats been the point and the theme throughout the bible. Do we trust (have faith in ourselves and our institutions) or do we trust (have faith in God)?
Keep in mind the context of Revelation. It’s a message to seven ancient churches who were facing persecution. It’s an indictment of earthly kingdoms that makes the point that every human kingdom eventually becomes Babylon and must be resisted. The book is filled with visions and images that point to Jesus’ return as the ultimate King, where he will restore his people and usher in the new creation. This promise motivates every generation of believers to remain faithful in the midst of persecution and hardship.
P.S. Sure. The early distinction of Judaism-Christianity was likely pretty fuzzy. The many varied expectations within Judaism and the many failed Messiahs complicate any simple definition. However, the suggestion is that an existing apocalyptic document had been wholly or partially utilized by later writer/redactors with Christain specific language interpolated in a similar manner as the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs or the Apocalypse of Abraham, etc. had been.
That would explain a great deal. The broken narrative, piecemeal nature, the apparent overt Christian additions, even the unclear, even multiple internal interpretations. Redactors, as you know, were not always careful or thorough. If they were, we would never see their hand.
There are those who suggest the writer edited his own work after conversion. Possible but I'd think he would have easily recognized the strain within his own writing.
