Posts by peacefulpete

41

Is Watchtower totally off base on Armageddon?

by Vanderhoven7 in

to me it is quite evident that the gt spoken about in matthew 24, mark 13 and luke 21 is a one time, non-repeatable localized event resulting in the destruction of jerusalem and the temple followed by the dispersion of surviving jews throughout the nations.. however, what is not so clear to most is that the gt of revelation deals with the same event.

my understanding is that the gb of jehovah witnesses has no clue as to how to interpret the apocalyptic messages found both in the synoptics and revelation.

but steve greg has armageddon down pat.

peacefulpete

Now, I know that there is no way to prove the reconstruction I laid out but it does explain the odd flow of the section. Shifting from literal to metaphor, it also allows a possibility that an UrMark (early form of Mark) was written before the events of 70CE.

It's also perhaps relevant that the Gospels dance around a Messianic expectation that the Messiah would rebuild the Temple, (as we also discussed recently) and that language could have been easily reinterpreted as predicting the destruction of the Temple in 70CE.

I favor the idea that the early form of Mark included the standard apocalyptic language as it associates pretty well with the Son of Man motif that recurs throughout Mark. It is also simpler to suggest that an editor 'clarifies' and elaborates the older cryptic language than to see that prophetic language being secondary.

If that is so, then a redactor had only to very slightly modify 13:1-4. They simply removed the Messianic claim to rebuild the Temple. It could have read something like this:

As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down. and I will build it back in 3 days.”
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
The earth will quake, darkness and distress, pestilence and famine, the nations will roar like the sea. The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

This then would flow into the subsequent narrative of the arrest and charges of blasphemy for claiming to be the Son of Man and to be the one who will rebuild the Temple.

After the events of 70 and 135CE the words might have taken new meaning. Hadn't he predicted the destruction of the Temple? But he couldn't have predicted to rebuild it, as this didn't happen. To deal with this the redacted Mark and Matt say the claim to rebuild the Temple never happened, it was a lie, John on the other hand dealt with this through the improbable suggestion he was referring to his body as the Temple.

Given the time that had past and the different nature of the 4th Gospel, it dispenses with the whole section. In fact, I suspect the author is chiding some who believed Christ was to immanently return to earth in some dramatic display.

John 16:

16 Jesus went on to say, “In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me.”

17 At this, some of his disciples said to one another, “What does he mean by saying, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,’ and ‘Because I am going to the Father’?” 18 They kept asking, “What does he mean by ‘a little while’? We don’t understand what he is saying.”

19 Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, “Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, ‘In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me’? 20 Very truly I tell you, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. ...25 “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father.

The writer had effectively negated the whole topic as figurative. In some spiritual sense Jesus would be present with his followers, this text alone is not clear.

41

Is Watchtower totally off base on Armageddon?

by Vanderhoven7 in

to me it is quite evident that the gt spoken about in matthew 24, mark 13 and luke 21 is a one time, non-repeatable localized event resulting in the destruction of jerusalem and the temple followed by the dispersion of surviving jews throughout the nations.. however, what is not so clear to most is that the gt of revelation deals with the same event.

my understanding is that the gb of jehovah witnesses has no clue as to how to interpret the apocalyptic messages found both in the synoptics and revelation.

but steve greg has armageddon down pat.

peacefulpete

When reading any of the three Synoptic versions we notice chunks of stock OT theophanic language salted amidst very specific details.

Some scholars have suggested that these chunks represent how the earliest Markan form actually read. That is, the response to the question posed to Jesus consisted largely of boilerplate OT theophanic (manifestations of divinity and judgement) language accompanying the appearance of the Son of Man:

There will be earthquakes ...famines...roaring and tossing of the sea...trumpet, darkness, failing sun and stars etc. Then the appearance of the Son of Man, which is itself a block of text from Daniel.

Exod. 19:16-18...thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, very loud trumpet blast ...mountain[b] trembled violently

Judg 5:4-5..the earth shook, the heavens poured, the clouds, the mountains quaked before the Lord

Is. 29:6..... the Lord Almighty will come with thunder and earthquake and great noise, with windstorm and tempest...

Ps.77:16-18 The waters saw you, God, and writhed; the very depths were convulsed. The clouds', thunder...the earth trembled and quaked.

Ps 18:7-18....the earth shook and trembled;..darkness, lightning. clouds.

Esther 1:1 (LXX)..voices and a noise, thunders and earthquake, tumult upon the earth.

Is 13:10..The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

Ez 32:7,8...When I snuff you out, I will cover the heavens and darken their stars: I will cover the sun with a cloud,and the moon will not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you;

Is 5:30...In that day they will roar over it like the roaring of the sea. And if one looks at the land, there is only darkness and distress; even the sun will be darkened by clouds.

Joel 2:10,3: 15,16...the earth shakes, the heavens tremble, the sun and moon are darkened. and the stars no longer shine. ...roar, thunder ...army of locusts

Amos 5:18-20,8:9-11...day of the Lord, darkness not light. I make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight....famine

And of course, Rev. draws heavily on passages like these and repeats the imagery to accompany divine judgement/appearances.

Back to Mark 13. Again, a reader can't help but notice a contrast between these chunks of OT theophanic language and very specific and far less colorful descriptions of being flogged, being in courts, betrayal by family, Jerusalem being surrounded by Romans etc.

It would make a great deal of sense to conclude the original form of Mark included only the boilerplate theophanic language, (earthquakes, lightning, famine, cosmic darkness etc.) culminating in the appearance of the Son of man from Daniel.

This has been discussed before, but as time went on and the events of 70CE and 135CE came and went, it would be only natural to literalize some of that language and add to it with details about the Jewish wars throughout the Roaman world, the devastating earthquakes and how Christians were suffering. The theophanic language of God's appearance being accompanied with earthquakes, turned into a prophecy of earthquakes.

It seems more likely Mark 13 was harmonized with the later recensions, Matt and Luke than Mark having been expanded prior to their use of it. It just pushes out the dating too far.

Microsoft Word - Detering Mk 13 JHC 50.DOC (radikalkritik.de)

41

Is Watchtower totally off base on Armageddon?

by Vanderhoven7 in

to me it is quite evident that the gt spoken about in matthew 24, mark 13 and luke 21 is a one time, non-repeatable localized event resulting in the destruction of jerusalem and the temple followed by the dispersion of surviving jews throughout the nations.. however, what is not so clear to most is that the gt of revelation deals with the same event.

my understanding is that the gb of jehovah witnesses has no clue as to how to interpret the apocalyptic messages found both in the synoptics and revelation.

but steve greg has armageddon down pat.

peacefulpete

JohnR....Mat 24:14 can’t be talking about ancient Jerusalem as the good news had to be preached in the entire inhabited earth before the end would come.

Col 1:6,23 ... In the same way, the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world—just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace.... This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.

41

Is Watchtower totally off base on Armageddon?

by Vanderhoven7 in

to me it is quite evident that the gt spoken about in matthew 24, mark 13 and luke 21 is a one time, non-repeatable localized event resulting in the destruction of jerusalem and the temple followed by the dispersion of surviving jews throughout the nations.. however, what is not so clear to most is that the gt of revelation deals with the same event.

my understanding is that the gb of jehovah witnesses has no clue as to how to interpret the apocalyptic messages found both in the synoptics and revelation.

but steve greg has armageddon down pat.

peacefulpete

Even though Luke attempts to protract the span of time from the "great distress in the land and wrath against this people" and the arrival of the Son of Man, even that writer linked the two together. There is no way to honestly avoid that conclusion. Regardless whether the writers or redactors had 70CE or 135CE in mind, they still understood the events of their life would trigger/precipitate the Son of Man's coming.

Luke defines it as he understood Matt and Mark:

There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people.

So we can dispense with the idea that this expression has future meaning.

Revelation also has such an expectation. Some scholars have concluded the text was originally a Jewish apocalypse, or a collection of them, that was reworked, extensively interpolated by a Christian about 50 years later.

The 'tribulation' Christians were having 'gone through' so as to be standing in the temple of God, is clearly describing martyrdom, likely under the reigns of Nero and/or Trajan. (Rev 7)

It can be said that similar to the Gospels, the Christain writer here anticipated divine intervention before long and that he and his living contemporaries would have a protective 'sealing' when God unleashes his vengeance.

In short, while both the Gospels and Revelation share a recurring idea (oppression and distress upon the righteous precipitating divine action), neither happened as hoped. And neither were referring to a time thousands of years later.

22

WHEN WILL THE ANOINTED BE TAKEN TO HEAVEN

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/sptboe8_kuc?si=cnb837qqdlm1glx0.

this is a question that has preoccupied the minds of the governing body " when will the last anointed be taken up to heaven?

" when did this nonsense begin ?

peacefulpete

Not soon enough.

152

Do JWs believe Jesus is an angel?

by slimboyfat in

i would suggest:.

the short answer is yes.. the longer answer is a qualified yes, with some caveats.

the short answer is yes because jehovah’s witnesses teach that jesus is michael the archangel, their leader, eldest and most powerful, and have taught this since the very beginning of the religion.

peacefulpete

aqwsed12345......Moreover, if the early Church had simply invented authorship to lend credibility to these texts, they likely would have chosen more prominent apostles like Peter or James.

Just an additional note. Tertullian in his Against Marcion says the following regarding Gospels:

Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith, in which there is disagreement with Marcion. Marcion, on the other hand, you must know, ascribes no author to his Gospel, as if it could not be allowed him to affix a title to that from which it was no crime (in his eyes) to subvert the very body. And here I might now make a stand, and contend that a work ought not to be recognized, which holds not its head erect, which exhibits no consistency, which gives no promise of credibility from the fullness of its title and the just profession of its author.

Now Marcion's conviction was that the works of Paul and the Gospel had been corrupted and altered by his own church. His version of the Gospel (possibly he had available a form resembling what was named Luke) has no name attached. It seems likely he regarded the names as part of the corruption.

Tertullian's argument is strange, he accuses Marcion (perhaps rightly so) of starting with a copy of Luke then faults him for not giving his redacted version a pseudonymous name. Going so far as to say anonymous Gospels "should 'not be recognized'. He clearly illustrates why names were assigned to anonymous Gospels; it supplied "credibility".

72

The Watchtower's Depiction of 'paradise'..

by Ron.W. in

perhaps we could post the pictures the wt have presented in their literature that depict their version of paradise here for comment/discussion:.

from: spirits of the dead—can they help you or harm you?

do they really exist?.

peacefulpete

What I take away is that everything in the pictures from comfortable modern housing and technology to the large, delicious cultivar varieties of fruit and vegetables are due to the hard work, schooling and ingenuity of "worldly" people. According to a literalist reading of Genesis, Yahweh left them to fend for themselves in a cursed land, wearing animal skins and sweaty brows.

33

Sorcery = Pharmakeia

by KerryKing in

rev18:23 '....you deceived the nations with your sorceries'.. the interlinear for sorceries reads pharmakeia.. bible hub has some interesting definitions, i'll try to share screenshots below.

the gist of it is that sorcery involves drugs/medicines/poisons, with or without spells, sorcery is not the same as witchcraft or divination, or white/black magic.

i have long wondered about the connection between the medical/pharmaceutical industry's symbol of the serpent wrapped around a pole/stake, and the use of the word pharmaceuticals/pharmacy.. considering the common use of fluoride in public drinking water, nsaids with side effects such as depression, brain fog, dizziness, and opioids, mrna gene therapy, vaccines and so on, i wonder am i going mad, are these all coincidences??

peacefulpete

So, to reduce the risk of poor health they threatened you with loss of family and friends.

33

Museum Pic

by peacefulpete in

a lot of ink has been spilled on the topic of the cross.

the wt felt it had uncovered some deep conspiracy when they found a number of words were used to describe how jesus was understood to have been killed.

there was an extensive thread many years ago that in short strongly supports the conclusion that at least some nt writers envisioned a cross, while others had a tree in mind.

peacefulpete

Stumbled across an interesting bit regarding the "Alexamenos graffito" as was shown in this thread. According to wiki, a work by David Litwa describes the Ptolemaic period connection between Seth the donkey headed god (not the man in Genesis) and Yahweh.

wiki:

Following the Assyrian conquest of Egypt in the 7th century BCE, Seth was seen as an evil deity by the Egyptians and not commonly worshipped, in large part due to his role as the god of foreigners.[17] From at least 200 BCE onward, a tradition developed in the Graeco-Egyptian Ptolemaic Kingdom which identified Yahweh, the God of the Jews, with the Egyptian god Seth.[18] Diverging from previous zoologically multiplicitous depictions, Seth's appearance during the Hellenistic period onwards was depicted as resembling a man with a donkey's head.[19][20] The Greek practice of interpretatio graeca, ascribing the gods of another people's pantheon to corresponding ones in one's own, had been adopted by the Egyptians after their Hellenisation;.....Furthermore, the story of the Exodus was adapted by Ezekiel the Tragedian into the Ancient Greek: ἐξαγωγή, romanized: Exagōgḗ, a Greek play performed in Alexandria and seen by Egyptians and Jews. .....In this context some Egyptians saw similarities between Yahweh's in-narrative actions and attributes and those of Seth, in addition to a phonetic resemblance between Koinē Greek: Ἰαω, romanized: Iaō, Yahweh's name as used by hellenised Jews, and Coptic: ⲓⲱ, romanized: Iō, lit. 'donkey', then seen as the animal of Seth.

Give this connection, it would not be surprising some would depict the Crucified Christ as a donkey. It is also suggested this association with Seth as a capricious god developed into the self-interested demiurge conceptualization of Yahweh in many Gnostic sects.

26

What if JWs voted in elections?

by Las Malvinas son Argentinas in

all this political banter is exhausting, so i want to ask a question that has probably been asked before, so here it goes….

let’s try to keep this non-partisan - just give your opinion and why you think that way.. i’ll go first.

i think jws would generally lean to the right, but not by a whole lot.

peacefulpete

Realistically, I suppose if the church presses them to vote against social issues like gay rights and reproductive rights, most would toe the line. If not, then it probably would fall about50/50 like the rest of the population.