Posts by Disillusioned JW

16

Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"

by Half banana in

in the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!

there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.

its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.

Disillusioned JW

Earnest, I have read that the earliest copies of the NT say "Chrestian" instead of "Christian".

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Disillusioned JW

The translation of the Bible by Ferrar Fenton (called The Complete Bible in Modern English on it front outside cover), in the edition printed in 1928, translates the latter part of Genesis 9:6 as "because I made man under the shadow of God". On the title page it called the following. The Holy Bible In Modern English Containing The Complete Sacred Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ...".

Interestingly the Joseph Smith Translation (of the LDS/Mormon church) in its rewrite and expansion of Genesis at Genesis 9:13 it says the following. "For a commandment I give, that every man’s brother shall preserve the life of man, for in mine own image have I made man." See https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/9?lang=eng . That web page also has a link to the traditional wording of Genesis (and I think it is in the KJV translation), for comparison.

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Disillusioned JW

Notice that Parsons' quotes Philo as saying that the scriptures say "I made Man in the image of God". I then then searched the internet for scriptural source of this I discovered that the Septuagint translation (as translated by Brenton) of Genesis 9:6 says the following. "He that sheds man's blood, instead of that blood shall his own be shed, for in the image of God I made man. The first English translation of the Septuagint was made in the USA by Charles Thomson (who also translated the Greek NT, the first American to do so) and his translation of Genesis 9:6 says the following. "He who sheddeth man's blood shall for it have his own blood poured out; for in an image of God I have made man." See https://studybible.info/Thomson/Genesis%209:6 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson%27s_Translation says "Thomson's translation of the New Testament is the first translation into English that was accomplished in America. ... Charles Thomson was secretary of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1789."

That rendering of "in the image of God I made man" is more consistent by speaking in the first person, than the meaning of the Hebrew which says "in God's image he made man", since the one doing the speaking (according to Genesis 9:1) is God! This supports the idea that early Christians got a number of their ideas about a heavenly Christ from reading the OT from the Greek Septuagint instead of from the Hebrew texts!

When the some of the first century Christians read the OT thy perceived Jesus Christ as being in some of those passages. The Greek Septuagint of Genesis 9:6 in saying "I" instead of "he" fully supports the NT teaching of Jehovah God having made mankind through Jesus Christ and it is in harmony with Genesis 1:26!

Perhaps the Greek Septuagint is more authentic to the original Hebrew Scriptures than the Masoretic Hebrew text is! Maybe Christians should stop translating the OT directly from the the type of Hebrew text which became known as the Masoretic text!

21

Robert H. COUNTESS and John 1:1 in the NWT

by Wonderment in

robert h. countess and john 1:1 in the nwt, part iirobert h. countess made the case in his book that the nwt ‘formulated their own principle’ on the article.

under summary and conclusions, he stated: “chapter four’s conclusions regarding the handling of [theós] indicated that nwt’s translators poorly understood the greek article, and that their principle [theós]=‘a god,’ [ho theós]= ‘god’ is not legitimate.” (p. 92) is countess conclusion correct?this is what the nwt actually said after observing that both moffatt and goodspeed rendered john 1:1c in their translations as “divine.” “careful translators recognize that the articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas an anarthrous contruction points to a quality about someone.” in making this statement, the nw translators also had in mind the grammar by dana & mantey, in which they stated: “when identity is prominent, we find the article; and when quality or character is stressed, the construction is anarthrous [without the article].” (p. 138) also: “there are no ‘rules’ for the use of the article in greek, but there is a fundamental principle underlying its significance – as we have seen in the foregoing section – and this gives rise to a normal usage.” (ibid, p. 141) nowhere did the nwt ever affirmed that this meant [theós] without the article is always equivalent to = ‘a god,’ and [ho theós, with the article is always to be understood as = ‘god.’ even the wts would have to agree with countess that such principle is “not legitimate.” colwell first published his book in 1982, and by then the watchtower had made their position clear enough.

in 1975 the wt wrote: “this does not mean, however, that every time an anarthrous noun occurs in the greek text it should appear in english with the indefinite article.

Disillusioned JW

Folks, there was a Jew from Alexandria who taught Christian doctrines before the officially believed time that Christianity got started. He is Philo and he said that the Word is not just the First-born Son of God, but also "the eldest of the Angels, the great Archangel" and the "Second God"! I discovered this in a book called Our Sun God, Or Christianity Before Christ (published in 1895 and thus during the early years of the WT and while Charles Russell was alive). I learned of that book because the author that book wrote a book called The Non-Christian Cross which the WT quoted from on page 12 of the April 2006 Awake!

In the Our Sun God, Or Christianity Before Christ the author (John Denham Parsons) quoted the Greek speaking Jew named Philo who lived in Alexandria. [By the way, it should be noted that many of the oldest manuscripts of the NT and of parts of the NT are of the Alexandrian text type.] Notice the following from Parson's book (I am quoting from the text as transcribed at https://archive.org/stream/oursungodorchri00parsgoog/oursungodorchri00parsgoog_djvu.txt , which has some typos due to the computerized scanning process) and I have added boldface for emphasis.

'... let us now turn to the works of Philo, the famous Jewish philo- sopher who wrote during and after the lifetime of Jesus, but had evidently never heard of the marvels recorded in the Gospels composed by the followers of his exploiter Paul of Tarsus.

In one passage Philo writes — " Why, as though speaking of another God, does he say * I made Man in the image of God,' but not in his own image ? The answer is, that nothing mortal could be made like the supreme All-Father, but only like the Second God, the Word. For the rational impress in the soul of man must be stamped by divine Reason, and cannot have as its archetype God who is above Reason." ^

Here we see the all-significant fact that long before such doctrines were preached to the world as a non-national religion by Paul and his followers, both the deity of the Idea, Reason, or Word of the All-Father, and the occupation by

' Frag, ii. 625.

same of the second place, were set forth by this famous Jewish philosopher.

In another place Philo writes — " God is the most generic thing, and the Word of God is second.*' ^ Here again, it will be noted, emphasis is laid upon the assertion that the Logos held the second place among the Powers of the Universe. The belief of Christians that though all things necessarily owe their origin to the All-Father, it was the Word " by whom all things were made," is also clearly traceable to Philo, who remarks : — "The Word, by which the world was made, is the Image of the Supreme Deity."

...

Yet another noteworthy saying of Philo is the one which runs as follows —

" As those who are unable to gaze upon the Sun, look upon his reflected radiance as a Sun, so likewise the Image of God, his angel Word, is himself con- sidered to be God." ^

Here the Logos is not only once more stated to be, though an emanation from the All-Father, considered God, but is also, as was the Sun- God Apollo, compared to the Light issuing from that central Fire, of which, according to the Magic Oracles^ "All things are the oflFspring."^ We also meet with the expression —

...

* De Somn., i. 40, 41.

' Porphyry, de Auiro Nympharum.

" The Shepherd of his holy flock." >

The connection in which the term is used is noteworthy.

Still more significant than the foregoing is the following passage —

" That High Priest, the holy Word, the First-born of God."'

The fact that this was how a philosopher of the previous generation wrote and thought, shows where Paul derived his inspiration from.

In another of the works of Philo we come across the sentence —

" His Word, which is his Interpreter." '

This description of the Logos as the Inter- preter or Mediator between God and Man, is also significant.

Elsewhere we come across the sentence —

" In the likeness of Man." *

I De Agnc., i. 308. ' Dt Ligis AUtgor., iii. 73.

' Di Sotanis, i. 653. < Dt Conju. Litig., i. 417.

The expression and idea are now considered Christian, ^ough of pre-Christian origin.

A most important passage next claims our attention —

" His first-begotten Son/' ^

Here Philo once more distinctly calls the Logos or Word the first-begotten Son of the All-Father. This is the very idea afterwards so enlarged upon by Paul, and in yet later times adopted by the author of the Gospel " according to" St. John.

In another of Philo*s works we read —

" To his Word, the chief and most ancient of all in heaven, the great Author of the Universe gave this especial gift, that he should stand as an Intercessor between the Creator and the created.'* ^

The works of Philo were thus the source whence Paul derived the most prominent of the thoughts which distinguished his teaching. How then can Paul be said to have been inspired of

* Dt Agric.f i. 308.

^Quis Rerum Divin. Hares.y i. 501.

God if Philo thought God's thought before him ? The feet that Paul claimed, as bestowed in favour to himself by God, that which he had borrowed without acknowledgment from Man, shows that Paul had a failing common to the majority of enthusiasts, that of acting upon the principle that the end justifies the means.

In yet another sentence of Philo's we have the remark —

" And the Word is, accordingly, the Advocate for all Mortals." '

As Philo had thus laid it down that the con- ception of Plato and other Greek philosophers known as the Idea of God, or Logos of God, or Word, was the Second God, the first-begotten Son of the All-Father, the divinely appointed Intercessor for the created, and the Advocate with the Father, long before Paul or any other Christian made use of the same ideas, the con- clusion is obvious.

...

Philo also tells us that —

" Even if no one is as yet worthy to be called a son of God, one should nevertheless labour earnestly to be adorned like unto his First-born Son the Word, who is the eldest of the Angels, the great Archangel with many names, and is called the Authority, the Name of God, the Word, the Image of Man, and the Guardian of Israel.** ^

Who would think to hear the exhortations of Christian preachers that one should strive to be like unto the Word which was in the beginning with God and which was God, that after all the idea is a pre-Christian one ?'

As shown above, the WT teaching that Jesus, the Word of God" is "a god", the eldest of the Angels and an Archangel, is in full agreement with very early Jewish Christianity - so early a form of Christianity that it predated the letters of the Apostle Paul and of the Gospels and even the rest of the New Testament!

All the WT needs to teach to harmonize their ideas and make them more in agreement with the NT is to teach the following. Jesus (The Word) was an emanation of God (God the Father, Yahweh/Jehovah) and thus truly God (and certain verses about Jehovah can correctly be also applied to Jesus) in a sense [Romans 10;9 - 15], while at the same time "a god" in a sense of being a separate individual (after he emanated out of the Father), and that as a result it is appropriate to worship Jesus as one does the God the Father.

In Russell's time the WT said it proper to worship Jesus and until the year 1954 the Charter of the WT said '... public Christian worship of Almighty God and Christ Jesus ...". As a result the WT could say they have returned somewhat to a former teaching of their, but with a refinement of it which removes contradictions in their doctrines. They also change their name to "Witnesses of Jehovah and Jesus" and refer to verses which speak of being witnesses of Jesus, while also continuing to use the verses in Isaiah about being witnesses of Jehovah. In doing so the reproach upon them will lessen and they would be more successful in getting people to join them. In so doing, they will also have come up with solution to the riddle of the binity, namely resolving the conflict of the riddle 'if there is only one God then how is that that Jesus is a god but not God the Father?'. At the same time they could still say they are not trinitarians.

22

Saving "mark" on forehead: A CROSS?

by Terry in

ezekiel 9:4.

“go throughout the city of jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”

in the script used during old testament times it was either in x shape or a + shape.

Disillusioned JW

On second thought there there doesn't seem to be much in common with what Parsons wrote and with what Jacobovici said.

22

Saving "mark" on forehead: A CROSS?

by Terry in

ezekiel 9:4.

“go throughout the city of jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”

in the script used during old testament times it was either in x shape or a + shape.

Disillusioned JW

Correction: In my prior two posts I sometimes used the spelling "Parson" and at other times I used the spelling "Parsons". The spelling "Parson" is incorrect for the name of the scholar I referring to, instead his name is "Parsons".

Terry, I have done a tiny amount of research about the Rosicrucians but no more than that.

Folks, one example of an atheist claiming that Christianity existed long before Christ is the book called Christianity before Christ by John G. Jackson and published by American Atheist Press. But I haven't read that book.

22

Saving "mark" on forehead: A CROSS?

by Terry in

ezekiel 9:4.

“go throughout the city of jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”

in the script used during old testament times it was either in x shape or a + shape.

Disillusioned JW

Elsewhere in the Cross book by Parson the following is said. [The text below and that quoted in my prior post are from https://archive.org/stream/nonchristiancros00pars/nonchristiancros00pars_djvu.txt . That source has some minor typos due to the computerized scanning transcription process (let the reader use discernment, or read the book from the PDF source instead).]

'No ross-shaped symbol of wood or of any other material had any part in the Christianity of the second and third centuries ; and the only cross which had any part in the Christianity of those days was the immaterial one traced upon the forehead in the non-Mosaic and originally Pagan initiatory rite of Baptism, and at other times also according to some of the Fathers, apparently as a charm against the machinations of evil spirits.

This " sign " or " signal " rather than " symbol " of the cross, referred to as theirs by the Christian writers of the second and third cen- turies, is said to have had a place before our era in the rites of those who worshipped Mithras, if not also of those who worshipped certain other conceptions of the Sun-God ; and it should be noted that the Fathers insist upon it that a similar mark is what the prophet Ezekiel referred to as that to be placed upon the foreheads of certain men as a sign of life and salvation ; the original Hebrew reading " Set a tail upon the foreheads of the men " {Ezek. ix. 4), and the tau having been in the days of the prophet in question — as we know from relics of the past — the figure of a cross. Nor should it be forgotten that Tertullian admits that those admitted into the rites of the Sun-God Mithras were so marked, trying to V explain this away by stating that this was done in imitation of the then despised Christians ! ^

That it was this immaterial sign or signal, rather than any material symbol of the cross, which Minucius Felix considered Christian, is demonstrated by the fact that the passage already quoted is accompanied by the remark that

" Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned ? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it.""

^ De Praescrip. xl. - Oct. xxix.

This remarkable denunciation of the Cross as a Pagan symbol by a Christian Father who lived as late as the third century after Christ, is worthy of special attention ; and can scarcely be said to bear out the orthodox account of the origin of the cross as a Christian symbol. It is at any rate clear that the cross was not our recognised symbol at that date ; and that it is more likely to have been gradually adopted by us from Sun-God worshippers, than by the worshippers of Mithras and other pre-Christian conceptions of the Sun-God from us.

...

There thus being no opposing evidence of any weight, it is quite clear from the fact that as late as the third century after Christ we find a Christian Father who venerated the sign or figure of the cross denouncing it as a symbol, that no material representations of that sign or figure were recognised as Christian till an even later date. And such a conclusion is borne out by the striking fact that when Clement of Alexan- dria at the beginning of the third century made out a list of the symbols which Christians were permitted to use, he mentioned the Fish and the Dove but said nothing regarding the Cross. ^

...

Peed. iii. II, 59-

...

The other passage in the writings of Irenseus which deserves our notice, is neither more nor less than an emphatic declaration, by Irenaeus himself, that Jesus was not executed when a little over thirty years of age, but lived to be an old man. Explain it away how we will, the fact remains ; and it certainly ought not to be ignored.

At first sight this statement of Irenaeus would decidedly seem to support the theory advanced by some, that, as the Roman Procurator Pontius Pilate admittedly did not want to carry out the extreme penalty in the case of Jesus, though he reluctantly consented to do so in order to pacify the Jews and allowed Jesus to be fixed to a stauros and suspended in public view, he took care to manage things so that Jesus should only appear to die. The idea of course is that if Pilate wished to preserve the life of Jesus he could easily have had him taken down while in a drueeed condition, have had the farce of burial carried out at the earliest possible moment, and then have had him resuscitated and removed to some region where he could dwell in safety. What Irenaeus says concerning Jesus is that

"He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants. ... So likewise he was an old man for old men, that he might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as regards the setting forth of the truth but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, he came on to death itself .... From the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while he still fulfilled the office of a Teacher ; even as the Gospel and all the elders testify, those who were conversant in Asia with John the disciple of the Lord affirming that John con- veyed to them that information. And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan. Some of them moreover saw not only John but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the statement. Whom, then, should we rather believe ? Whether such men as these, or Ptole- maeus, who never saw the apostles and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle ? " '

The reader must decide for himself or her- self whether Irenaeus believed that Jesus was never executed ; or that he was executed but

^ Against Heresies, IL, xxii. 4-5.

survived ; or that he was born when we suppose, but executed thirty years or so later than we suppose ; or that, though executed when we suppose, he was then an old man, and was born, not at the commencement or middle or end of the year A.C. i, or B.C. 4, or whenever the orthodox date is, but thirty years or more before what we call our era began. An3^how he men- tions neither cross nor execution, and here seems to assume that Jesus died a natural death. And in any case the fact remains that, however mis- taken he may have been, Irenaeus stated that Jesus lived to be an old man ; and stated so emphatically.

Even granting that Irenaeus must have been mistaken, his evidence none the less affects one of the most important points debated in this work. For it is clear that if even he knew so little about the execution of Jesus, the details of that execution cannot have been particularly well known ; and the affirmation that the stauros to which Jesus was affixed had a transverse bar attached may have had no foundation in fact, and may have arisen from a wish to connect Jesus with that well-known and widely-venerated Symbol of Life, the pre-Christian cross. '

Notice that some of the things mentioned in Parson's book agree with what was said in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus, A Simcha Jacobovici Film"!! Is it mere coincidence that a book I learned of by researching the author of a quote in a WT publication contains some of the same ideas that Jacobovici later proclaimed? I don't think so.

22

Saving "mark" on forehead: A CROSS?

by Terry in

ezekiel 9:4.

“go throughout the city of jerusalem and put a mark on the foreheads of those who grieve and lament over all the detestable things that are done in it.”

in the script used during old testament times it was either in x shape or a + shape.

Disillusioned JW

Last night I read a portion of an Awake! article from April 2006 (on pages 12 - 13) called "The Bible's Viewpoint. Did Jesus Really Die on a Cross?"
What caught my intention is that it quoted a scholar's book called The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parson. I thus investigated that book and its author and I discovered that the book was published in the year 1929! [The book's full title is THE NON-CHRISTIAN CROSS: AN ENQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE SYMBOL EVENTUALLY ADOPTED AS THAT OF OUR RELIGION.] That is the only scholarly source referred to in the Awake! article yet the source was about 77 years old when the Awake! was published. Furthermore I learned from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Denham_Parsons that the author, John Denham Parsons, was a member of the Society for Psychical Research, yet the WT (which condemns the occult and spiritism) quoted him as an authority about the implement of Christ's death! Not only that, but Parsons wrote a book called OUR SUN-GOD OR CHRISTIANITY BEFORE CHRIST: A DEMONSTRATION THAT, AS THE FATHERS ADMITTED, OUR RELIGION EXISTED BEFORE OUR ERA, AND EVEN IN PRE-HISTORIC TIMES.

I decided to read those books to see what they say. I discovered that thay actually make a good case for a number of their claims! They can both be read for free online at https://archive.org .

The Cross book Parsons says the following.

'Another fact worthy of special note is that, whether the Fathers wrote in Greek and used the word stauros^ or wrote in Latin and trans- lated that word as cnix, they often seem to have had in their mind's eye a tree ; a tree which moreover was closely connected in meaning with the forbidden tree of the Garden of Eden, an allegorical figure of undoubtedly phallic signification which had its counterpart in the Tree of the Hesperides, from which the Sun-God Hercules after killing the Serpent was fabled to have picked the Golden Apples of Love, one of which became the symbol of Venus, the Goddess of Love. Nor was this the only such counterpart, for almost every race seems in days of old to have had an allegorical Tree of Knowledge or Life whose fruit was Love ; the ancients perceiving that it was love which produced life, and that but for the sexual passion and its indulgence mankind would cease to be.

Starting upon an examination of the early Christian writings in question, we read in the Gospel of Nicodemits that when the Chief Priests interviewed certain men whom Jesus had raised from the dead, those men made upon their faces " the sign of the stauros." ^ The sign of the cross is presumably meant ; and

^ Nicodemus i.

all that need be said is that if the men whom Jesus raised from the dead were acquainted with the sign of the cross, it would appear that it must have been as a pre-Christian sign.

Further on in the same Gospel, Satan is represented as being told that " All that thou hast gained through the Tree of Knowledge, all hast thou lost through the Tree of the Stauros." ^ Elsewhere we read that " The King of Glory stretched out his right hand, and took hold of our forefather Adam., and raised him : then, turning also to the rest, he said, Come with me as many as have died through the Tree which he touched, for behold I again raise you all up through the Tree of the Stauros." ^ Some see in this peculiar pronouncement a reference to the doctrine of re-incarnation.

...

^ Nicodenms vii. - Nicodemtis viii. '

In the Sun-God book (published in 1895) a number of things which Parsons says are things which a small number of atheists today say about Christianity having started before the time of Moses, and that some sayings in the Gospels relate to the signs of the Zodiac. Like a number of atheists who proclaim the Christ Myth theory, he says the Gospel of Mark is an allegory and he explains some things about early Christianity from a Gnostic point of view. He also says that some passages in the OT Bible are myths instead of being factual. He also believes in human evolution and says that our Genus, Homo, existed many thousands of years longer than 6,000 years. I might post quotes from that book in a different topic thread.

13

Governing Body Update 3 video on resuming meetings in person

by psyco in

regarding the governing body update 3 video on resuming meetings in person, i am wondering:.

what is the purpose of wearing masks and to sit keeping distances if you shake hands and hug each other before and after the meetings?.

Disillusioned JW

At 1 John chapter 4 the NWT instead of saying "every spirit" (as in the NKJV) says "every inspired expression". Since they interpret the wording in that chapter in that way, I guess that means they don't follow the advice in that chapter about testing the spirits to see if they are of God instead of the antichrist!

Correction: In my prior post where I said "I first rest such" I meant to say "I first read such".

13

Governing Body Update 3 video on resuming meetings in person

by psyco in

regarding the governing body update 3 video on resuming meetings in person, i am wondering:.

what is the purpose of wearing masks and to sit keeping distances if you shake hands and hug each other before and after the meetings?.

Disillusioned JW

It is significant that it was said that the "Governing Body really felt Jehovah's direction", since that amounts to saying that the Governing Body really felt INSPIRED by Jehovah. In the past a number of times the WT said the Governing Body didn't claim to be inspired, but in the video it was reported that they received inspiration.

BoogerMan and Listener, thanks for making those quotes of the WT claiming to receive communication from resurrected ones in heaven. That is because if reminds me of the WT's former use of Greber's translation (so-called) of the NT. Greber (whose wife claimed to be a spirit medium) claims that his translation was aided by communication (through Greber's wife as a spirit medium) from "God's Spirit World"!

Also, those quotes of the WT claiming to receive communication from resurrected ones in heaven reminds me than I first rest such in the Revelation Climax book, the claim seemed very strange to me. I think it was one the things which contributed to me having doubts that the WT/JW religion is "The Truth".

The WT has produced articles saying it is a sin of spiritism/spiritualism to try to communicate (even by prayer) with spirits of humans, including holy ones that people (such as Catholics) believe are in heaven (such as Mary the mother of Jesus), yet the WT claims to receive communication/direction from Br. Russell and others whom the WT claims have been resurrected as spirits to heaven!

When the Governing Body of the JW's supposedly think they are receiving communication from the supposedly resurrected anointed ones in heaven, do they follow the advice in the letter of 1 John 4:1 - 3 about testing the spirits, by asking them if Jesus Christ came in the flesh?