Posts by peacefulpete

10

Why are people being born without wisdom teeth?

by Fisherman in

sometimes people are born with deformities but is the human body adapting to modern world with biological changes?.

peacefulpete

11.3: Defining Characteristics of Archaic Homo Sapiens - Social Sci LibreTexts

10

Why are people being born without wisdom teeth?

by Fisherman in

sometimes people are born with deformities but is the human body adapting to modern world with biological changes?.

Our jaws are shorter than archaic homo sapiens. Along with diminished prognathism came the issues of a third set of molars. We are genetically changing but not apparently in response to diet changes, at least not directly. It was thought that our surgical intervention might stimy the adaptive advantage and halt the process, but newer studies suggest the evolutionary process isn't driving a loss of the last set as much as the shape of the jaw which is triggering an inhibitory cascade result. Molars actually release a inhibitory enzyme to the next molar. IOW the shape of the jaw and the number of teeth are directly related. However the inhibitory action is not perfect and many of us still have the third set of molars emerge or worse they don't have room and grow forward crowding the teeth.

The shape of the jaw is the result of our brain size and the reduction in prognathism. That preference to not appear apelike might be in part driven by sexual selection. (better looking guys and gals get more action).

3

Mesquite Mountain

by peacefulpete in

ok, the title may make more sense for those who enjoy grilling.

horeb (aka sinai).

most students of the ot are fully aware of the documentary hypothesis in some form, in short it is near universally recognized that the book of exodus, for example, is the composite work of a redactor who has collected the traditions of the judahite and israelite people.

peacefulpete

EdenOne,..thanks for replying.

11

neutrality

by enoughisenough in

i had a thought about neutrality...how we were never to take sides on political issues, say by voting.

how does that square with the letters we were asked to write to various lawmakers in countries-not too many years ago we were ask to write to russian officials.

i wonder if there is to be a letter writing to norway.

peacefulpete

Terry has said it well. I'll add 2 cents by reminding everyone that Jewish history is a nonstop record of war. War and Judaism go together like forks and knives as well. Christianity spawned in Jewish waters but was largely a 'Gentile" faith that eclipsed national identity. To the extent that some early Christians refused military service it was out of concern they might kill fellow Christians. Ask, what NT passage forbids enlisting in the military? None

Ironically it was Christians in the Roman Army that resulted in Constantine's conversion and the worldwide spread of the religion. Even as early as Marcus Aurelius (161-80) Tertullian says:

"But of all the emperors down to this present reign, who understood anything of religion or humanity, name me one who persecuted the Christians. On the contrary, we show you the excellent M. Aurelius for our protector and patron; for if you look into his letters, you will find him there testifying that his army in Germany being just upon perishing with thirst, some Christian soldiers which happened to be in his troops, did by the power of prayer fetch down a prodigious shower to the relief of the whole army; for which the grateful prince, though he could not publicly set aside the penal laws, yet he did as well, he publicly rendered them ineffectual another way, by discouraging our accusers with the last of punishments, viz. burning alive” (The Apology of Tertullian, tr. by Wm. Reeve, online facsimile of the 1709 text, p. 8,

85

Physically in mentally agnostic ie sitting on the fence

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

hi everyone i’m not pimi or pimo i’m pima.. i don’t think the gb have everything right but i’m sitting on the fence that maybe they do some things.. if the great trib starts i will jump that side of the fence.. this is a definite little sneaky advantage dodging but even by their own doctrine last min some could come in.. i suspect many are like me.. i spent years in bethel and am very disappointed and disillusioned by it all.. but at the end of the day i love the bible and think it is the word of god and i don’t see any other religion that comes as close to what jesus describes his true followers or who are fulfilling mat 24:14..

peacefulpete

Think we scared him away.

208

How to debunk the 1914 calculus ONLY using JW publications?

by psyco in

i remember having read somewhere, but i cannot find it anymore, that it is possible to debunk the 1914 calculus using only jw publications, like "insight on the scriptures" (chronologies) for example.. do you have any sources about that to suggest to me?.

thanks..

peacefulpete

DisillusionedJW....You made many good points. I agree the antisemitism of much of the Gospels is a secondary layer of the faith. Interestingly even in the most proJewish revision of Mark (called Matthew) the Jews are depicted as perpetually bloodguilty for the death of Jesus.

"His blood be on us and on our children!" Matthew 27:25

A key to unraveling all the tangles is to realize that as soon as a person says, The Jews did this or that or believed this or that" they are guilty of stereotyping and grossly oversimplifying the religious environment of the times. Half of the deaths of Jewish people were by Jewish people. On a small scale, like the death of the Teacher of Righteousness of Qumran to the civil war level revolts between the sects supporting or rejecting the Hasmoneans or the Maccabees. Josephus has just shown us the violent power struggles for the High Priesthood. IOW they were quite capable of violence over religious and political matters.

I'll share my present understanding of the early stages of Christianity. I cannot prove much of it, but feel it is consistent with the facts and works as a model.

I suspect the movement began with a soft-start. No single event or person initiated the religion. Rather it grew from the Hellenized Jewish conceptions of a Son of Man/ Son of God heavenly figure such as we see expressed fully in Philo and intertestamental literature. This topic has been discussed on this forum in a number of threads. It was a small step to envisioning an incarnation of this heavenly figure. This figure, previously known as the Logos, or Son of God was given a human story. A story almost entirely drawn from the OT and intertestamental imagery. This was not 'fraud' but pious inspiration (small i). This was the norm. Typological (dual meaning) reinterpretation of past writings was the lifeblood of Jewish religious culture.

The Jerusalem temple-focused sect was not a fertile soil for new religious ideas, it had devolved into a political institution that was deemed largely irrelevant by the much larger diaspora. It was here in the larger Jewish community that creativity vitalized the faith, it was here in the melting pot of ideas unchained by temple politics, that the roots of Christianity spawned. I'd place this soft start around 100-50BCE.

As I just said, the incarnation of the more approachable Son of Man figure required a narrative. This was drawn piece by piece through brilliant usage of scores of stories of Moses, David, Elijah, Judah etc. This apparently existed in oral forms for a short time (time of Paul) but then eventually written down. This was done by someone outside Idumea and a second or third generation Christian. (many scholars call it UrMark, an early form of Mark) The name Joshuah (Jesus) and the place became fixed by this same method of OT typology. It's also possible the myths of Messiah ben Joseph contributed to the fleshing out the story. Messiah ben Joseph - Wikipedia

The writer made clear he was drawing from the OT but later generations understood the narrative as historical and the parallels as prophesy literally fulfilled.

It also seems quite plausible that early on, the new faith attracted followers of John the Baptist. Some even assuming the new character was John reborn. (Matt 16:14) The miraculous birth narratives, also drawn from OT, were apparently previously attached to the JTB. It was this key element that anchors the story in time IMO. From there the story writes itself. The OT typological necessity for Jesus to die (on a tree) by forces of evil was quite naturally depicted as killed by Roman crucifixion.

This narrative (possibly written as a didactic (teaching) play) was popular and distributed among the communities of Christians (who from the start had diverse views). The literate leaders of these communities revised this narrative as each perceived the Jesus figure slightly differently. Many other narratives (gospels) and sayings were written at this time as well.

40-70 years later 4 of these narratives (3 synoptics and one with more Gnostic tone) were collected and elevated, becoming sanctioned by the congealing orthodoxy amongst the most politically savvy group. Names of persons in the stories are attached to them as authors.

As the centuries pass this orthodoxy is challenged by many rivals but the 4 narratives are further harmonized somewhat and weaponized into dogma and as a base of power. The same is done to a collection of Paul's writings. The book of Acts is written and a number of Pseudo-Paulines that cement the orthodoxy's (Catholic) positions. Revelation by John the Presbyter is eventually attributed to the same guy as the Gospel and a number of epistles. It is reluctantly adopted into the collection.

Take that for what it's worth.

11

neutrality

by enoughisenough in

i had a thought about neutrality...how we were never to take sides on political issues, say by voting.

how does that square with the letters we were asked to write to various lawmakers in countries-not too many years ago we were ask to write to russian officials.

i wonder if there is to be a letter writing to norway.

peacefulpete

JW 'Neutrality' is a misnomer. JWs have vowed to be against everything they are told to be against and for everything they are told to be for. Conformity is confused for neutrality.

85

Physically in mentally agnostic ie sitting on the fence

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

hi everyone i’m not pimi or pimo i’m pima.. i don’t think the gb have everything right but i’m sitting on the fence that maybe they do some things.. if the great trib starts i will jump that side of the fence.. this is a definite little sneaky advantage dodging but even by their own doctrine last min some could come in.. i suspect many are like me.. i spent years in bethel and am very disappointed and disillusioned by it all.. but at the end of the day i love the bible and think it is the word of god and i don’t see any other religion that comes as close to what jesus describes his true followers or who are fulfilling mat 24:14..

peacefulpete

Brooklyn in the 80s. Lifetime ago.

I'll be as forthright as possible without scaring you. I got kinda beat up emotionally at bethel. When I left I buried my reservations about the religion for another 10 years or so. Foreign assignment and full-time gung-ho. I always felt like an outsider and a fraud. Eventually I allowed myself the right to read history and natural science. There were no regrets. I found the answers to questions I was afraid to ask before. Everyone is different but if you have a similar feeling of disconnect, the answer is knowledge and friendship

85

Physically in mentally agnostic ie sitting on the fence

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

hi everyone i’m not pimi or pimo i’m pima.. i don’t think the gb have everything right but i’m sitting on the fence that maybe they do some things.. if the great trib starts i will jump that side of the fence.. this is a definite little sneaky advantage dodging but even by their own doctrine last min some could come in.. i suspect many are like me.. i spent years in bethel and am very disappointed and disillusioned by it all.. but at the end of the day i love the bible and think it is the word of god and i don’t see any other religion that comes as close to what jesus describes his true followers or who are fulfilling mat 24:14..

peacefulpete

Welcome, No, you are not alone with your feelings. Many start out "seeing things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but eventually see everything with perfect clarity."

I was also a Bethelite.

3

Mesquite Mountain

by peacefulpete in

ok, the title may make more sense for those who enjoy grilling.

horeb (aka sinai).

most students of the ot are fully aware of the documentary hypothesis in some form, in short it is near universally recognized that the book of exodus, for example, is the composite work of a redactor who has collected the traditions of the judahite and israelite people.

peacefulpete

Ok, the title may make more sense for those who enjoy grilling.

I'm discussing the burning bush story in Ex 3. at Mt. Horeb (aka Sinai)

Most students of the OT are fully aware of the Documentary Hypothesis in some form, in short it is near universally recognized that the book of Exodus, for example, is the composite work of a redactor who has collected the traditions of the Judahite and Israelite people. J&E were understood as being fused prior to the introduction of P material. In this particular story this might help in making sense of an otherwise bizarre story.

Moses is at the base of a mountain called Mt. Horeb by E, Sinai by J and P and sees the burning (seneh (סנה‎ [səneh]) Yahweh speaks from the seneh and declares he is YHWH and he is their god who says:

When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you[b] will worship God on this mountain.”

Fast forward (chapt 19) and we have the Israelites freshly out of Egypt assembled again at the same mountain Sinai where:

3 Then Moses went up to God, and YHWH called to him from the mountain and said, “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: ....18 Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because YHWH descended on it in fire.

Back to the "bush". As I said the word is "seneh" it is an unknown word not found anywhere else but in this passage and the centuries later poetic retelling in Deuteronomy. If you look up the word you will find a definition as bush but that is merely repeating the traditional translation of this passage. The LXX did used Greek equivalent to the word bush/brambles reflecting a very old interpretation of the story.

A simple elegant solution was proposed long ago:

The word rendered "bush" () is found only in this passage and in Deut. xxxiii. 16, where, however, it is possible that the right reading is "Sinai."
BURNING BUSH - JewishEncyclopedia.com

It does seem a fine proposal. Early on, perhaps at the time when the J and E traditions were merged the J name of the mountain (Sinai) was slipped into the original E story that called the mountain Horeb. A very small copyist corruption made the word illegible as "sene" and the imagination took over from there. It has always seemed bizarre for the great and powerful YHWH to appear as a bush on fire, it seems much more likely the story E wrote has Moses stand before a mountain on fire and introduce himself. That is, he "spoke from fiery Sinai" just as he does in chapt 19.

Later P or a redactor made some adjustments to the story including the insertion of an 'angel' and possibly logical continuity elements like saying the bush was "not being consumed" etc.

I posted a thread on this before but was unable to locate it, maybe new ones might find it interesting.