Hope for good things is healthy. Hope for impossible things is denial.
peacefulpete
JoinedPosts by peacefulpete
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
-
3
where did I first hear these words together?
by enoughisenough infor many years the only place i heard the words " new world order" together or the words "new system" were in the meeting talks or maybe we endeavored to explain them to people we witnessed to.
i just find it interesting that the worldly institutions are using the same word terms.
i just saw an article of some 5 points that came out of this last davos meeting, and all five of these points were using the term "new system" in the changes they want to force mankind into .i am wondering what is the likelihood of the most powerful people on earth borrowing words from a "hated" religion.
-
-
-
43
Research paper on Effects of Shunning
by peacefulpete inafter being around this site for 21 years now, i've heard many recount their stories and feelings.
many times i can immediately relate but other times they seem to have had a very different experience with the church.
i'm sure that is because not only are all of us different in personality, but congregations and family dynamics vary as well.
-
-
peacefulpete
After being around this site for 21 years now, I've heard many recount their stories and feelings. Many times I can immediately relate but other times they seem to have had a very different experience with the church. I'm sure that is because not only are all of us different in personality, but congregations and family dynamics vary as well. Here is a simple study wherein the author interviewed a number of former JWs. (warning it may trigger memories and pain).
-
58
Did the ransom sacrifice even work?
by Sharpie inshower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.
as per doctrine.
is still alive in heaven right now correct?
-
-
peacefulpete
Skeptics aren't suggesting that that the apostles and others died for their beliefs. They are asking Christians to believe that the apostles and others died for their lies, for something they KNEW to not be true; because they said they were eye-witnesses.
Nothing establishes a new movement like a few martyrs. Generously assuming that legends about their deaths are historical, all we have is a tale as old as religion. People killing and dying for their faith. Are to presume every visionary or prophet or who was killed must have been divinely moved?
First we have Paul, like DisiJW just said Paul claimed only to have been fated, chosen before birth to be a visionary.
But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles…
He also claimed to have had visions of the layers of heaven (as was commonly believed see Enoch) and heard secret unspeakable things that he kept to himself. (2Cor12)
After years of preaching Paul goes to Jerusalem, to get to know a Cephus. More than a decade later he returned to Jerusalem again, met with Cephus, a John and a James. He did not mention anything about "eyewitnesses" only that they 'were esteemed to be pillars' in their church. The gospels had not yet been created so as to give these names a significance beyond that.
Concerning the Gospels, we have a late anonymous narrative (Mark) filled with OT midrash that was anonymously redacted and expanded with even more midrash and legend. If this was the work of eyewitnesses, they surely would not have needed to cut and paste Mark and the OT as is evident the writers did.
The only mention of eyewitnesses I can think of is in 1Cor 15 that leaps out as a formulaic creedal interpolation. It reflects a later layer of mythmaking not even seen in the Gospels and Acts.
I know this review is not going to change your mind, but at least stop misrepresenting the position of those who are not convinced of the miraculous claims in Xtian writings.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
To my knowledge the writers of the OT never heard of female orgasms.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Lol..Vanderh..., you'd make a good Rabbi.
-
203
My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT
by cofty in10 " any israelite or any alien living among them who eats any bloodi will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
12 therefore i say to the israelites, "none of you may eat blood, nor may an alien living among you eat blood.
15 'anyone, whether native-born or alien, who eats anything found dead or torn by wild animals must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be ceremonially unclean till evening; then he will be clean.
-
-
peacefulpete
Lev 20:18 If a man lies with a woman during her menstrual period and has intercourse with her, he has laid bare the source of her flow and she has uncovered it. The two of them shall be cut off from the people.
Lev 15:24“’If a man has sexual relations with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days; any bed he lies on will be unclean.
Same book, evidently different hands and views.
-
11
Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15
by peacefulpete inacts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.
the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.
this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.
-
-
peacefulpete
Some other links. Another of the 7 deacons was Philip the Evangelist who according to Acts hosted Paul on a different trip to Jerusalem.
8 The next day we left and came to Caesarea, and we went into the house of Philip the evangelist, one of the seven, and stayed with him.
Note the unmistakable effort to remind the reader that Jerusalem and Paul were friends.
At least 2 of the other names (Prochorus and Parmenas) are those described by tradition as being bishops of Antioch/Asia Minor. Timan was believed a bishop in Syria, stretching the roots of Syriac Xtianity???
-
11
Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15
by peacefulpete inacts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.
the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.
this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.
-
-
peacefulpete
I kinda regret the ellipsis regarding Silas not being in the Paulines. It opens a whole other box of unresolvable puzzles. While it is everywhere stated that Silas and Silvanus are the same person, (even some translations substituting Silas in the Paulies) it is not as simple as that. They are different names with different roots. Suffice it to say, at least many believe the names were originally intended to identify the same character while a minority hold the connection to be secondary but found useful . I admit it could be either way.
If the identification of Silas with Silvanus was originally intentional it might be another example of the author intending to unite the churches which were historically rivals. If the traditional linking of the names was secondary it serves the same purpose.
Earlier I referenced Acts 6:
5 What they said pleased the whole community, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.
Here Acts includes a certain Nicolaus a proselyte (meaning converted to Judaism) of Antioch as among those authorized to dispense food equitably (7 deacons by Catholic tradition) when "Hellenists" declared they were being treated discriminately. Even here we see a cultural/religious division reported but presented as being corrected by the leaders of the Jerusalem church. "Hellenists" likely was a reference to a branch of Xtianity with affinity to Paul's particular brand. Further the Nicolaus of Antioch was a Paulinist who had his own branch of Xtianity. According to Irenaeus:
3. The Nicolaitanes are the followers of that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the apostles. They lead lives of unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out in the Apocalypse of John, as teaching that it is a matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
Hippolytus describes him:
But Nicolaus has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food. And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.
Surely we see a pattern, Paulinist positions are being refuted while at the same time alleging the various branches had a peaceful united origin.
-
11
Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15
by peacefulpete inacts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here i will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of xtianity.
the deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential.
this theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from jerusalem traveling back to antioch to share with paul and barny, named judas (yes another one) and silas.
-
-
peacefulpete
Acts 15 has an interesting backstory (and textual history) that has been touched on elsewhere so here I will only say, the purpose of the section, and much of the book, is to re-envision the history of the early days of Xtianity. The deep schisms, (some might say even different origins) are made to appear superficial and inconsequential. This theme contiues with the choice of two 'prophets' from Jerusalem traveling back to Antioch to share with Paul and Barny, named Judas (yes another one) and Silas.
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas—Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, 23 and they [l]sent this letter by them,
Shortly afterward:
33 After they had spent time there, they were sent away from the brethren in peace to those who had sent them out. 35 But Paul and Barnabas tarried in Antioch...
So Judas and Silas returned to Jerusalem. However, the narrative continues with Paul having an angry fight with Barney over Mark and so Barney takes Mark with him:
40 but Paul chose Silas, and went forth,...
So now Paul is depicted as actually sharing his missionary travels with a prophet from Jerusalem. (not in Paul's letters) But this created an obvious problem in the narrative flow as it reads today. Silas left to go back to Jerusalem and here he is still in Antioch. That brings up vs 34.
Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
Fact is, the problem is more complicated that it might appear at first. Without getting too mired down with comparative manuscripts, (abbreviated MSS) suffice it to say the "oldest" MSS do not have verse 34. Yet these oldest MSS are about 250-300 years separated from the writing of Acts. The reading of the verse as shown above is reflected in MSS dating back to about the 9th century. However other versions of verse 34 date back to the 5th century. Those MSS that have a verse 34 very extensively in the reading of the verse.
Codex C (5th c) reads, “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas that they should abide there still.”
Codex D (6th century) Papyrus 127 (5th c) and a number of Old Latin manuscripts (8th c) read “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still, and Judas went on alone.”
The 14th-century John Wycliffe Bible, an “Old Latin” copy, itw (15th century) and the Clementine Vulgate manuscripts (16th) have another version, “But it was seen to Silas, to dwell there; and Judas went alone to Jerusalem.”
My point of this exercise is not due to any importance of this particular verse other than it resolves a narrative flaw. In fact, I chose this verse because it is doctrinally neutral. My point is more fundamental.
Here we have manuscript proof that even as late as the 14th century, the text was being actively altered so as to "improve" the reading. It seems at least 4 separate alterations are evident dating back to the 5th century. Most textual critics assume the various inclusions of a vs 34 was made to resolve the narrative glitch, however we really have no reason to make that assumption other than through presumption the 4th century MSS are superior. Is that a reasonable presumption?
It is logical believe that the primary restraint from altering the text was the weight of textual tradition, i.e., familiarity with the reading. It stands to reason then, the later the date the less free an editor would feel.
How should this then affect the confidence of a reader using a text largely extrapolated from MSS dating from the 4th century? Is it reasonable to believe while abundant editing and interpolation (estimated 500,000 non-spelling variations) occurred after the 4th century that no meaningful editing was done prior? Would it not rather be more reasonable to assume the greatest tendency for editing took place when the number of copies was small and those familiar with them were few?
In this example, is it possible the glitch in the narrative (assuming vs 34 is secondary) is the result of reordering the material? Was the linking of Silas with Paul a secondary thought? Is there something missing between the episodes that would explain Silas's presence? Any of these possibilities would explain the glitch.
Who knows?