Posts by peacefulpete

41

Why are JW's THIS blind?

by BoogerMan in

i had a conversation about this 22 carat gold contradiction with a couple of zealous jw's a couple of days ago.. even their personal "explanations" contradicted each other as they tried justify their cognitive dissonance!.

an absolute delight to witness such absurdity.. "after all, no one will be allowed to practice vile things in the new world.

the unrighteous must have practiced these vile things [john 5:29] before their death.

peacefulpete

I've pondered trying to "recreate" a hypothetical Jewish form. It just seemed pretty much impossible to divine what was Jewish from Jewish Christian. Like I said earlier, it strikes me as a series of verbal dioramas. They may not have even been drawn from a single original document. IOW the Christian author/redactor may have collected material from separate works and married these with his own. Without at least some guidance, it would be impossible convincingly separate sources.

You may have read that Cerinthus was one of the proposed authors. IOW, It was apparently at some point anonymous. The name 'John' is the single reason it was eventually included into the Canon of most churches. It seems reasonable to say that it was added to facilitate its inclusion into the Canon. Even then keen readers recognized the style differences from the Gospel and so assumed it referred to a different John. Eventually the Orthodoxy firmly established the tradition that the writer was the same man as the author of the 4th Gospel, the epistles and the John from the Gospel story.

41

Why are JW's THIS blind?

by BoogerMan in

i had a conversation about this 22 carat gold contradiction with a couple of zealous jw's a couple of days ago.. even their personal "explanations" contradicted each other as they tried justify their cognitive dissonance!.

an absolute delight to witness such absurdity.. "after all, no one will be allowed to practice vile things in the new world.

the unrighteous must have practiced these vile things [john 5:29] before their death.

peacefulpete

I think my last comment addresses the issues you are seeing. The way the writer (and redactor) structured the whole thing wasn't meant for it to be read as a narrative but a collection of scenes, utilizing familiar symbols and language from earlier apocalyptic works. Ultimately it was written for a particular sect of Christians experiencing Roman oppression who felt sure things would deteriorate. The basic themes are vindication and vengeance. Few Christians read it or liked it then. It took hundreds of years for it to be widely accepted. Ironically about the time Christianity became the State religion of the empire.

6

Yahweh the Angel

by peacefulpete in

a small thread that may be of interest to some.

in short, there are 3 occasions in the ot where yahweh is identified with the epithet "angel".

(mal ak).

peacefulpete

Phizzy, Yep. That's what I suspect as well. While all three texts are in the Persian era, they may have been written early enough for the word to not have fully taken on a limited application that would have invoked concerns of blaspheme. It is very interesting to analyze the later attempts to revise the passage in Eccl (LXX 'Elohim' e.g.) out of this very concern. The NIV and others interpret that word as referring to a priest or temple 'messenger' and add the word 'temple'.

41

Why are JW's THIS blind?

by BoogerMan in

i had a conversation about this 22 carat gold contradiction with a couple of zealous jw's a couple of days ago.. even their personal "explanations" contradicted each other as they tried justify their cognitive dissonance!.

an absolute delight to witness such absurdity.. "after all, no one will be allowed to practice vile things in the new world.

the unrighteous must have practiced these vile things [john 5:29] before their death.

peacefulpete

DisiJW...I won't spend a great deal of time breaking it all down, but in short, Revelation is a work that that attempts to incorporate OT and intertestamental apocalyptic symbolism and even diverse scenarios. For instance, the description of a war of all the nations is repeated in various ways, notably before a 1000 year interval and also after. Some commentators suppose the 1,000 year chiliasm is an original idea of the author that he had to shoehorn into his collection of motifs and scenarios he is reinterpreting from his sources. Whether you find it intellectually satisfying or not, the author was not overly concerned with a completely logical outcome. IOW. regards what you observed, yep taken literally and read as a single harmony, it would be an issue that no one is left on earth to rule over during the 1000 years, (that is until you read that all the nations are soemhow still around to oppose the saints after the 1000 years). It's an artifact of the way he used his sources.

41

Why are JW's THIS blind?

by BoogerMan in

i had a conversation about this 22 carat gold contradiction with a couple of zealous jw's a couple of days ago.. even their personal "explanations" contradicted each other as they tried justify their cognitive dissonance!.

an absolute delight to witness such absurdity.. "after all, no one will be allowed to practice vile things in the new world.

the unrighteous must have practiced these vile things [john 5:29] before their death.

peacefulpete

Rev describes the Christian martyrs are raised to heaven by the throne, then says the dead were raised after 1000 years and judged out of the things written in the book of life. This might seem odd but it was one of the Jewish perspectives that the dead would be reanimated in the flesh to receive judgement for their past. Rev represents a melding of ideas in early Jewish Christianity. An earlier/better resurrection for those who are martyred or just and a resurrection to judgement for the rest. This is repeated in the Bible in those terms a number of times. Again, this might seem redundant, but it fit the overall narrative that the 'righteous' would be vindicated over the wicked. To accomplish this in many minds, the dead had to have their condemnation explained and witnessed. No one among those in the 'second resurrection' are ever said to beat the rap, they are raised exclusively to be condemned and have justice pronounced.

6

Yahweh the Angel

by peacefulpete in

a small thread that may be of interest to some.

in short, there are 3 occasions in the ot where yahweh is identified with the epithet "angel".

(mal ak).

peacefulpete

A small thread that may be of interest to some. In short, there are 3 occasions in the OT where Yahweh is identified with the epithet "Angel". (mal ak)

Genesis 48:15 And he blessed Joseph and said, “The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the Yahweh who has been my shepherd all my life long to this day, 16 the Angel who has redeemed me from all evil.......

Malachi 3:1Behold, I send Malachi, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the Angel of the covenant, whom ye desire, behold, He cometh, saith Yahweh of armies.

Ecclesiastes 5:2 Do not be quick to speak, and do not be hasty in your heart to utter a word before God. After all, God is in heaven and you are on earth. So let your words be few.

(and the parallel in vs.6)

Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the Angel that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?

All of these texts have inspired many textual variations and countless interpretations that obscure this use of the epithet Angel (messenger) with Yahweh, however the best explanation is that in the mind of these writers, the word was not offensive or dishonoring. Might this reflect a theology prior to the full adoption of the Greek daemon concept, (lesser deities called angels)? Or maybe its use was not relegated to that limited use yet.

Malachi is of course the same word (messenger/angel) The author of the book by that title is anonymous.

33

The (Shunned) Woman at the Well

by Sea Breeze in

i always found the account of the "woman at the well" to be particulary interesting.

this unknown shunned woman of ill-repute was specifically sought out and chosen by jesus.

why?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el7dzonv3iy&ab_channel=michaelpapale.

peacefulpete

I can appreciate a Hollywood movie revision while at the same time prefer the book. Later generations of Christians mistook the 'spiritual' nature of the story as history and in so doing stripped it of much of it's brilliance. The religious sage reduced to a news reporter.

12

armageddon in 2034????? yeh right !

by xbro in

is the watchtower predicting the.

end by 2034 through subtle hints?.

the watchtower, december 15, 2003, pages 14 - 19. please be patient while the web page loads page scans of the watchtower article.

peacefulpete

I realize the theme of this thread is the WTs carrot and stick approach to sheparding.... but as a textual critical note the line has nothing to do with the flood stories that were inserted into the narrative. Lift the flood and tower story out and you have a continuous J (Yahwist) narrative. God decrees a limit to the lifespan of humans, (he would remove his "spirit" from them so that they would become mortals even though his "sons' were having children with humans). J has no one die (other than Abel being murdered) before this and no one live longer than 120 years from there forward. The composite nature of Genesis has obscured a rather simple narrative.

33

The (Shunned) Woman at the Well

by Sea Breeze in

i always found the account of the "woman at the well" to be particulary interesting.

this unknown shunned woman of ill-repute was specifically sought out and chosen by jesus.

why?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el7dzonv3iy&ab_channel=michaelpapale.

peacefulpete

The meeting a woman by a well was another OT typology that the Gospel writer felt needed to be included in his picture story filled with metaphor. Isaacs wife was discovered at the well, then this is repeated for Jacob and even Moses. Jesus was thus identified as the 'fulfillment' of promises embodied in those patriarchs. On a more radical note, there are fairly good reasons to believe the early form of G.John included this scene in parallel to the OT as how Jesus met his wife. The marriage scene in Cana was moved along with other reordering in the story. But whether you accept that or not, the story is explicitly identified with the Jacob story. It was "Jacob's well".

38

Would I be disfellowshiped for this?

by ExBethelitenowPIMA in

if a publisher openly told the elders that they thought the gb were wrong about some or a lot of things, but said they will not share these thoughts with anyone else then would this be a case of disassociation disgfellowship?.

my guess is lots of elders meetings and shepherding calls to try to get you to say something they could use against you.. but what would be the sin in which you are not repented?.

the only reason to be dissed is non repentance?.

peacefulpete

Disentangle yourself for a moment. Ask, who are you, what's important to you? Formulate a strategy to accomplish that to the extent you can. Know there are variables beyond your control. Be at peace.