Posts by peacefulpete

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

peacefulpete

how anyone in this life or any other life could think of GOD having blood

As a theological concept it actually has much appeal. We are in God's image right? Judaism's founding texts certainly had no problem with their God having a body. He walks around and eats and interacts like anyone else. Many Rabbis throughout the centuries asserted he did have a physical body. While others disagreed it was due to the increasing sophistication of their theology not by textural rebuttal. It makes God accessible and relatable like the Jesus figure does centuries later.

(.https://www.amazon.com/Limits-Orthodox-Theology-Reappraised-Civilization/dp/1906764239) Has a chapter on the evolving notion of God's body.

Interestingly millions of Christians today embrace the idea of God having a body...they are called Mormons:

Doct&Cov 130 22 The aFather has a bbody of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of cSpirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not ddwell in us.

25

God Has Only One Visible Organization on Earth!

by Vanderhoven7 in

why is it important to some that god only have one visible organization to represent him on earth?

why is it important to jehovah's witnesses that people recognize their organization as such?

what makes a witness more moral or righteous or save-worthy if they accept that it is his one and only organization?

peacefulpete

That aspect of Christianity was probably inherited from it's Jewish rootstock. Judaism was incredibly diverse by the first century, with dozens or more sects that each hated each other. For example, the Qumran community famously rejected the apostate priesthood in Jerusalem. The Romans saw Jews and Christians as equally stubborn, sectarian and divisive.

As it happened it was this intolerance (combined with State power) that eventually established one branch of the cult as a world religion.

24

New Discovery at Mt. Ebal: the earliest historical instance of the name of God

by Terry in

.

https://youtu.be/guzbxzdpflo.

peacefulpete

https://www.facebook.com/Prof.IsraelFinkelstein/posts/1852051938327635

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

peacefulpete

At the time of the writing of Acts (whether you prefer an early or late date) the debate about the nature of Christ was raging already. (I regard this as the 3rd stage of Xtian development) Some felt he was spirit with the appearance of flesh like angels in OT, some felt he was a spirit that adopted/possessed a man named Jesus, some held no particular purpose to his death other than the tragedy betrayed the corruption of the earthly world, some were attracted to the idea that the human sacrifice was transactional. Some assumed the end of the Law some did not. All these ideas were popular within different communities and are on display through the writings of the time and the hundreds of recognized alterations to the text of the books the winning orthodoxy eventually chose to include in its canon. To ponder how this one text in Acts originally read without considering these facts would be folly.

13

Acts 20:28

by Fisherman in

acts 20:28 literally says: “his own blood”.

nwt interprets the verse: “the blood of his own son”.

nwt is an accurate interpretation because the verse is axiomatically referring to the blood of jesus and not the blood of god..

peacefulpete

"the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood

Variant 1 την εκκλησιαν του κυριου
“the church of the Lord”
P74 A C* D E Ψ 33. 453. 945. 1739. 1891. 2818 gig p syhmg co; Irlat Lcf

Variant 2 την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και του θεου
“the church of the Lord and God”
C3 L 323. 1241 Maj

My point is simply that either the verse created discomfort very early and variants emerged to resolve it OR that the verse has been altered to support the deification of Jesus. Nowhere else does the writer of Acts use the expression "church of God" but Paul does. It's possible it was altered to harmonize with Pauline usage. Who knows.

21

The Great Tribulation

by Fisherman in

will the great tribulation hurt individuals more than what job, jesus, roman punishment, naz&i germany, hiroshima, jail, capital punishment, disease, pain, terror, horror, soldier in the battlefield or some terrible pain people experience this very moment?

how worse can pain and suffering get.

it is very common.

peacefulpete

John also sees a great crowd standing before the throne. (Re 7:9-10) He is asked if he knows who that great crowd is. He does not, so the angel tells him that these are the ones who survived that great tribulation. (Re 7:13-14)

"came out of the tribulation". means they died during the tribulation and go to heaven. WT spin make no sense as the crowd are in heaven before the throne.

21

The Great Tribulation

by Fisherman in

will the great tribulation hurt individuals more than what job, jesus, roman punishment, naz&i germany, hiroshima, jail, capital punishment, disease, pain, terror, horror, soldier in the battlefield or some terrible pain people experience this very moment?

how worse can pain and suffering get.

it is very common.

peacefulpete

Leolaia did a great research project on this and related topics. Talk a couple hours reading.

The 144,000 and the Great Crowd of Revelation

7

Philosophical Question

by budbayview in

according to the bible, there was dissention in heaven or god’s kingdom.

in god’s own courtyard, the factors existed for such, that perfect creations morphed into gods’ opposition, even in the presence of the universal creator.

accordingly, they are still at it, hell bent on destroying all.. here is my question; how is it that the creation thinks they can win a war with the universal creator?

peacefulpete

The Gnostic Jews and Christians pondered along similar lines. Some concluded the god of creation was in fact merely a demiurge manifestation of the true god that had lost the purity of a spirit god. Sounds crazy today simply because of our religious tradition but it more made sense to many, than the OT on face value.

Fact is the stories and legends can hardly be expected to fully work with Western modern minds, given as they were written and collected with a very different ancient approach to truth and history. The Gnostics were early attempts to make sense of the OT stories while yet wishing for a god worthy of worship.

31

Hobbies

by peacefulpete in

jw
friends

i think it's been a while since this was asked.

tell us your hobbies, interests, pastimes, whatever you find enjoyable as a diversion from work and school.

i am lucky enough to live in a small cabin on a lake, i enjoy rowing my old boat and fishing, i play with car projects, and we travel as much as we can.

peacefulpete

myname....My wife did collect the early trade tokens of Canada and I seem to have acquired a bunch of merchant tokens and "hard times" tokens from the US. IMO those are most interesting from a history perspective.

30

Opinions on the Divine name in the New Testament? + an interesting question

by Blotty in

i am genuinely curious and mainly posting this for research purposes, i do not have enough knowledge on either of these subjects to debate them in any useful manner.. (this information is as far as i am aware and may be incorrect in places)as most know the nwt is known for placing a form of the divine name in the nt (new testament) - while i agree the evidence is significantly weak for it too appear in the nt, a few things must be considered - (from my limited research)rev references the name twice (3:12, 14:1)early copies of the lxx contain the divine name (likely the versions that the nt writers copied?

stafford has a couple of videos on this subject)it was emphasized over and over the name [divine name, which ever form you prefer] would be "known" (other words used aswell) forever - if this is true, why then go against your own message in some cases and replace it with a surrogate?some also claim the nwt is dishonest for not translating some occurrences of "lord" as the divine name - common ones i notice are: phil 2:10-11, 1pe 3:14-15, heb 1:10yet these all use "lord" as a title not a proper noun, seems to be staunch trinitarians who make this claim most oftenscholar qualifications:why does a scholars qualification's matter?

sounds dumb i know.

peacefulpete

Regarding pronunciation. On the internet you will find countless attempts to assert the solution. The bottom line is the deity (or deities) that evolved into the first century Jewish God had been called lots of things in lots of ways.

Language, culture and time are like that. That so much ink has been spilled on this topic betrays the oversized importance modern Christians place on it. Was it of such importance to the writers of the OT? Apparently not as they used a slew of variations and abbreviations and a number of theophoric titles rather than a name. Secular evidence has led to some scholars suggesting the name was once a longer phrase describing a southern storm god or a hypocoristicon (shortened affectionate name) of a theophoric of El the father of the Palestinian gods. Others postulate a deified human ancestor with a theophoric name at the root. All are possible though some seem less probable. It's also possible more than one possibility is true. A local deity overlapped/merged with an imported one.

IMO. We have good epigraphic reason to accept the OT's acknowledgement that he was worshipped in Edom and northern Arabia before imported to Israel/Judah likely by Kenite traders. If so the name is likely a translation of a verbal theophoric and probably beyond definitive etymology much less pronunciation. In the end we just do not have enough to be dogmatic about the murky past. If all you care is how the first century Jews pronounced the name then the answer is simple, they didn't and you are missing the forest for the trees.