Posts by peacefulpete

11

Another Tidbit regarding Acts 15

by peacefulpete in

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.

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 in

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.

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?

170

Staying in physically for all the benefits

by Indoubtbigtime in

i wonder how many are like me staying pimo for the great association and gathering etc.

also find it very interesting having a front row seat watching the collapse of borg.. im not wasting any more time or money on anything i don’t want to do like preaching and mostly just go on zoom .

there is nothing i want to do that would be considered disfellowshiping sin, i’m married and want to live by bible principles but i have serious doubts that the gb were chosen by god and are his one and only spokesmen on earth.

peacefulpete

I certainly respect people's choices in that regard. And as StephaneL just said it is a decision that may change with time and circumstance. I have to say this tho, I have a friend that hung around, only to be shunned by their children later. It seems clear to me; the programing needs to be distanced and inoculated against not just ignored. As far as being married, my relationship bloomed after leaving. If you reflect on it, so-called 'Bible principles' are actually just 'principles' with male dominance and intrusive judgementalism added. It may surprise you to know lots of nonJW couples work hard on their relationship and selflessly love each other.

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

10 " 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

My questions were rhetorical to illustrate the can of worms this is.

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

10 " 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

a trapped animal or one hunted and not bled cannot be eaten by JW

But they can sell it to their neighbor? Can they donate blood if a nonJW needs it? Does their uncleaness last till 6pm? According to Leviticus someone who eats blood was to offer a guilt sacrifice and be forgiven. Is it your view that Jesus's sacrifice is less powerful?

16

PIMO but to scared to talk about doubts

by Indoubtbigtime in

i am pimo but too scared to talk about my doubts with anyone for fear of being shunned.

i know many now have doubts that the vaccines are safe and effective this is as good as doubting the gb.

you can it say anything in doubt about the vaccines because the gb still act like salesmen for big pharmaceuticals .

peacefulpete

People leave for many reasons; some are not terribly persuasive to me, but whatever it was, it broke a spell of blind loyalty and conformity. I used to say many people leave for the 'wrong reasons' because I worried that without a more comprehensive understanding, they would harbor feelings of guilt or isolation from society. Now I don't say that anymore, it occurred to me maybe the real reasons they left are not yet evident to the person leaving. Some last straw may be what has their attention but behind that lies a longer unspoken distrust formed through years of suppressed doubts. I still worry, hoping everyone takes care of their psychological health by asking tough questions and facing their demons head on.

7

The True story of Edgar the Crow (as told by me over the last nine years)

by Terry in

jw
friends

the chronicles of edgaras told by terry walstrom.

cue the edgar origins story .... __________.

i broke off a piece of multigrain bread from my sandwich and tossed it toward the little scavenger.. every frickin’ day thereafter he appears demanding (like a sleazy hollywood agent) 10% of my snacks.

peacefulpete

Anyone who feeds birds is alright with me.

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

10 " 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

Ditto

203

My Explanation of Why They Got it Wrong About Blood Using Only the NWT

by cofty in

10 " 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

The Fact that Rabbis have for centuries attempted to unpack and unravel the Tanakh makes the point that these writings are incomplete, vague, arbitrary and contradictory.

One example I posted was that one text says you can sell dead animal for food, another says no. One text says unclean to touch a dead animal another says go ahead and use the fat.

Nothing makes any sense to us, who can only try to surmise the process, the motives and the purpose of these works, and who are separated from the cultural peculiarities of the times of the Levite writers.

Why were disease spreading locusts ok to eat (nuisance?) but not grasshoppers, delicious crabs or rabbits? Why giraffes ok to eat but not camels? (OCD?) Why ok to sleep with daughter but not granddaughter? (omission?) Why destroy a ceramic pot if it touches something ceremonially unclean but leather and wood are ok to keep? (pots are cheaper to make?) Why was it forbidden to eat fruit from a transplanted tree for 3 years then have to travel to Jerusalem to eat the fruit of the 4th year? (Sacred associations of trees with goddess and sun?) Why pork prohibition? (Philistines introduced them, Attis story?) Why is eating a swan or heron egg forbidden but not a goose egg? (???)

These are the works that have had Rabbis wrangling for centuries. Now JWs are arguing about semantics and definitions to decode what medical treatment they can give their dying child.

When does this lunacy end?

58

Did the ransom sacrifice even work?

by Sharpie in

shower thought entered my mind the other day... jesus christ.

as per doctrine.

is still alive in heaven right now correct?

peacefulpete

There is absolutely no concept of a soul in terms of a conscious part of the person that survived death prior to the Babylonian exile

Cofty, I believe you are in a bit of a shady gray area there.

However, most cultures especially prior to the 20th century believed (as the bible teaches) that man also has an immaterial consciousness (soul).

Sea Breeze, Maybe the explanation for that lays with human psychology more than divine revelation. It's not difficult to understand really. We to speak to ourselves with an inner voice without moving our lips. Voila inner soul.