Posts by PioneerSchmioneer

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

Thanks, Peacefulpete. I appreciate your comments very much as well.

The stories in the New Testament are full of Jewish tropes, having been written by Jews, including Luke. So the stories of the 12 Apostles fits the idea of the Messiah establishing the Davidic monarchy due to the belief that during the Messianic Age the 12 tribes that were dispersed and lost would return and be restored to Israel--but now under Christ's leaders.--Matthew 19:28; Acts 1:6.

Whether or not there were a literal 12 Apostles is hard to say. The narratives in the gospels are hard to reconcile with historical reality. The authors were trying to teach religion like Gamaliel or Hillel, not write like Josephus. This is true even of Luke who composed the Acts of the Apostles.

Luke himself seems to be more of a Jewish convert than a "Gentile," as often claimed by the Watchtower. While it is clear that he was of Gentile birth, it is also clear he knows a lot about Jewish religion--a little too much for a mere Gentile. The first two chapters of his gospel are dripping with Judaism and details about the Temple, even what the inside of it looked like and liturgical details that most non-Jews today don't catch when reading it, such as prayer times during the day and how long preistly service lasted, etc. (Luke 1:8-11, 21, 23) And in Acts he talks about how Peter still keeps kosher and how all the Christians in Jerusalem are doing the same, following the Mosaic Law, even how Paul does this--though Paul keeps some of these details out of his own letters.--Acts 10:13, 14; 18:18; 21:20-26.

Luke, like the other authors, is obviously a Jew, though a convert, and when he writes narrative, it is likely filled with religious overtones, folklore, and the like. Luke 2:1-2 is definitely the employment of the genre of Jewish mythology. Not only do the dates not work for any of the rulers mentioned, nor the events, the Roman government never had a census at this time nor did it have a census where it would make people return to their own hometown to register. Could you imagine the chaos of having the population of the Roman Empire do this? It's a narrative device to set up the story of the "birth of Jesus" so he, a Nazarite, could be born in Bethlehem--an origin story genre similar to the types used in Genesis.

So the same author writing about the Apostles in Acts cannot be leaned upon for modern historical accuracy about what really happened in the first days of the Christian community.

19

I have some questions about the Org.!

by KerryKing in

are any or all of the gb from jewish descent?.

why are they so fascinated with following ancient jewish 'principles' ?.

isa 43:10, 44:8 ' you are my witnesses ' which they based their religious identity on, jehovah's witnesses, yet those verses address the jews, not christians, which they profess to be.. jesus said in ac 1:8 'you will be witnesses of me ', .

PioneerSchmioneer

Diogenesister:

I don't know where most people get their wrong ideas from. I think Watchtower gets it from where most other people generally do, namely from not getting a formal education and thinking they don't need one. The "you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish" thing is very old. Either lack of exposure or outright fraud is the only thing I can say here. The Jews have always been here to ask. If you didn't ask a Jew, then you made up the answer. And if you made up the answer, then you should be ashamed.

Joseph is supposed to be the father of Jesus, even though Mary is fully Jewish. Both, according to Scriptural tradition, are of the line of David.

But this is not the teaching in the earliest gospel, namely Mark, which according to Church Tradition is supposed to be Petrine in origin. This would suggest that as time went on, people began to question Jesus' origin as it was not originally established in Mark's gospel. If it had been, especially if it was supernatural and this was important to the Gospel (and I mean, the Good News that "saves"), it would have been included by Peter in the account he had given. Oddly, there is nothing about this in Mark (no virgin birth, no pre-existence, zip).

As for the two geneologies in Matthew and Luke, neither are historical in nature. So it is hard to establish why this data would be missing from Mark if this was to be a salvific teaching.

While it is not hard to fathom that Jesus of Nazareth could be of the line of David, I am not sure why the argument is made so late and in the fashion that it is in the New Testament. It is curious to me, but not impossible.

6

Trinity n latest ideas actually fit in more with JWs ideas?

by Mikejw in

there is a new trinity teaching that says jesus is a separate person but at the same time all three are one.. https://youtu.be/jdok0gedjau?si=bbdwoprdpzvzwkfz.

this is basically the same as watchtower teach that jesus is so much like his father in every way that you could almost call them the same.. things have changed from when i was pioneering with the old trinity brochure.

PioneerSchmioneer

Rattigan350:

You are doing something JWs commonly do, which is mix up two very old Christian doctrines, namely the Protoevangelium, and the other which is actually the Catholic and Greek Orthodox interpretation/devotion involving St. Michael the Archangel--which Watchtower leans on when trying to defend its "Jesus=Michael" doctrine.

The idea that Genesis 3:15 is some type of prediction of Jesus' coming is a teaching stretching back to the late Church Fathers called the Protoevangelium or the "First Gospel." The doctrine is that Mary is the "woman," Jesus is the "seed," and the Devil is the "serpent." It is not a Jewish teaching as there is no belief in Satan the Devil in Judaism.

Revelation 12:7 deals with an entirely different serpent, namely Leviathan, as Revelation is using Jewish tropes, not Christian ones. The Protoevangelium was first established in 180 CE, the late 2nd century, by Irenaeus, and Revelation was written around 95-96 CE, the late 1st century. So the "original serpent" could not have been the idea of Irenaeus' Protoevangelium as it had not yet been invented when Revelation was written. The author had to have something else in mind as this was a doctrine to come later after the book came about.

So before this Christian doctrine was created, the only other "original serpent" there could be (since the Jews did not believe that Genesis chapter 3 was Satan the Devil") was "leviathan" of Isaiah 27:1. Of this scholars are in agreement. Just do an Internet search and you will see that academics agree that this is the actual connection:

We know that Revelation is not recalling the snake in Eden because the source of John’s language isn’t Genesis, it’s Isaiah. Along with calling the devil a “serpent” (ophis; ὄφις), Revelation 12:9 describes Satan as a “dragon” (drakon; δράκων) three times. The only other verse in all of Scripture that describes a creature as both a “dragon” and a “serpent” in this way is Isaiah 27:1, and the creature is the primordial sea-monster known as Leviathan. The Isaiah verse appears in the context of God's eschatological battle against evil, which is the very same context that readers encounter in Revelation when Michael and his angels confront Satan (see Rev 12:7-9). According to the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, Isaiah 27:1 states, “In that day God shall bring a holy and great and strong sword against the dragon (drakon; δράκων), the serpent (ophis; ὄφις) that flees, upon the dragon (drakon; δράκων), the twisting serpent (ophis; ὄφις): [God] shall destroy the dragon (drakon; δράκων).” Revelation 12:9 contains the same threefold repetition of "dragon" that appears in Isaiah 27:1, and both verses repeat the word alongside "serpent" in the context of divine battle. Therefore, we can be confident that Isaiah 27:1 is the verse to which Revelation refers in its description of heavenly war against Satan.--Which "Serpent" Is Satan? Israel Bible Center.

Watchtower leans upon Catholic views of Michael as a warrior against the Devil, usually with a sword and the main leader of God's forces against Satan popular in the main public's view, to play on the religiously uneducated to suggest that only Jesus Christ could play this part in God's plan.

The famous prayer to St. Michael the Archangel is quite unknown to Jehovah's Witnesses, but it sounds like actions that only Jesus Christ would play as one conquering the Devil:

St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.

Watchtower doctrine is "mushed-up" beliefs of Christology, mistaken identities, and uneducated Bible look-ups with a little popular mythology added in since no one seems to know any better.

(IMHO, JWs are often too afraid to purchase or read one of Christendom's or Judaism's Bibles for fear "evil" or academia might "rub off" on them--but they would just learn the above if they did. This isn't something you would learn in a college course, just from a sidebar or a footnote in your average Bible.)

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

You are reading too much into what I write.

I am not a Christian. But I taught religion for some years after leaving the Watchtower.

As I would tell my students before I retired, an instructor isn't hired to subscribe to the facts they teach, merely to get the facts across--even if nobody likes how they feel.

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

The 27 books of the Christian New Testament canon were not finalized until 367 CE.

Clement and Justin Martyr lived about 200 years before then.

The books of Revelation and 2 Peter were unheard of in their time, while the Apocalypse of Peter and the Shepherd of Hermas were read almost universally before then.

The idea of a Biblical canon was unknown in the time of Justin. It was a new invention of a contemporary heretic of his, Marcion of Sinope, a bishop that was excommunicated for his suggesting that the church should limit itself to doctrine based on a closed canon of texts and that the texts could produce salvific knowledge.

Due to the rise of the Marcionist threat, the church had to counter with its own canon. But prior to this, Christianity was based on the teachings from a "college" that passed down tradition learned from the Apostles. At one time the college was made up of Clement and Justin, who are known as the Church Fathers.

This is why Western schools of higher learning are called a "college" as opposed to a "yeshiva." Colleges are higher schools of learning once set up by Christians where you learned from the Elders or Fathers as opposed to yeshivas which are academies where Jews learn from rabbis.

This is why Jehovah's Witnesses are against sending their children to schools of higher learning. The foundation of such institutions are religious in nature, even though today one tends to associate then with the secular.

Oxford, Nortre Dame, Stanford, Yale--all these and more are all founded as religious universities. The Apostolic College, as it is known, passed its Tradition to the Church Fathers like Clement and Justin Martyr. Only later did they add a closed canon of Scriptures to Apostolic Tradition, but only by the authority already present in bishops passed down from and by the Fathers.

48

Is Jesus God?

by Sea Breeze in

i know that a lot of historical names have claimed to be a god.

but, jesus arguably claimed to be god.

scripture says he's the creator.

PioneerSchmioneer

Sea Breeze:

To "worship" in Koine Greek (and in ancient times) means to "offer an act of obeisance" in modern American and UK usage.

The word at Hebrews 1:6 is the Greek verb PROSKUNEO, and it means to "perform an act of reverence before" another person, usually one of higher rank or someone you honor.

It occurs, for instance, at Matthew 20:20:

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling [proskynousa] before him, she asked a favor of him.

According to Josephus, this was the way people would greet the high priest--he actually uses the same Greek word--since they were the representative (though not the incarnation of) God, during the days the Second Temple was standing.

This likely explains why Cornelius is spoken of greeting Peter at Acts 10:25, with the use of the word PROSKUNEO and Peter rejects it.

To show that the word has only reference to the act and not to creed (which is often the case in Judaism), it is used in John 4:22) as the word for "worship":

You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.

One can "worship" what they "do not know." In other words, one can "bow before" something they have no real knowledge of.

If the word meant to "worship" as in "belief and adore and creed," then that would be different, but PROSKUNEO does not. It refers to homage, kneeling, prostration.

Jehovah's Witnesses do tend to bend the rules a lot with the New World Translation. But in some cases they are just different, in the minority--and people find it irksome.

In the end, it is a play on words. Obeisance is something you give to a king or a deity anyway, and a king almost always represents a god on earth. Again just like the high priest of the Temple was a representative of God (though not an incarnation). So it doesn't matter what word you use. The context still states in Hebrews that Jesus is greater than the angels because he is like God to them.

And thus the problem with whatever words the NWT tries to choose. You can only go so far.

48

Is Jesus God?

by Sea Breeze in

i know that a lot of historical names have claimed to be a god.

but, jesus arguably claimed to be god.

scripture says he's the creator.

PioneerSchmioneer

If there were any clear claims by Jesus or his apostles that he was God there would never have been

Docetism: the claim that Jesus was God in an apparent or "phantom" body
Separationism: that divinity only dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth from his baptism until his death
Modalism: that God exists under there "modes" of activity instead of three persons, namely the modes of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Separationism--a time when Jesus was not God? How could God not be God for 30 years--and your followers decide when you became God and stopped being God?

Modalism? Trinitarianism? How do your followers decide how much of you is God and how many of "you" make up God?

Modalism was the favored view of Christians during the 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries.

Why all these debates and heresies in the early church about Jesus among the Christians if it's all supposed to be so clear to begin with--if Jesus made it crystal clear that he is God?

21

Christians Encouraged to Read 'Pagan' Works

by peacefulpete in

clement of alexandria.

the stromata, or miscellanies.

book vi.

PioneerSchmioneer

Not only were they encouraged to read pagan works, the Christians give Scriptural reasons why they encouraged such study--especially philosophy (which they would eventually use to develop the Trinity dogma)--based on Jewish Tradition that is very ancient.

According to Exodus 3:22, the Hebrew text explains that God wanted the Israelites to strip the Egyptians of their gold and silver as they left the land. This meant to take their jewelry and temple decor which consisted of religious idol emblems. From these the Jews crafted what would become the sacred parts of the Tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant itself.

Based on this understanding, the Church Fathers understood that it was necessary to "stip the world" of its "gold and silver," namely its wisdom and philosophy in order to find ways to better equip itself to both worship God and preach the Gospel. This it did, not merely to formulate various doctrines but to create various fields and schools of higher learning.

The idea is not central to Christianity as it comes from the Jewish sages and was later developed after the fall of the Second Temple in the Talmud by Judaism which, as many know, has an even greater love for higher education than Christians seem to have. It is older than the Temple itself, so to speak.

19

I have some questions about the Org.!

by KerryKing in

are any or all of the gb from jewish descent?.

why are they so fascinated with following ancient jewish 'principles' ?.

isa 43:10, 44:8 ' you are my witnesses ' which they based their religious identity on, jehovah's witnesses, yet those verses address the jews, not christians, which they profess to be.. jesus said in ac 1:8 'you will be witnesses of me ', .

PioneerSchmioneer

Diogenesister:

Interestingly enough, in Bible times a Jewish identity was reckoned from the male line and only after the founding of Rabbinic Judaism did it change to the maternal line...

Actually it was likely in the time of Ezra, which was in Biblical times, that matrilineality in Judaism, was likely set, around 460 BCE, due to Jewish men taking on foreign wives. But it could have been set as late as the period of the Tannaim (10-70 CE) who were Jewish sages contemporary with Jesus and the Apostles that recorded the Mishnah.

Either way, it was likely set prior to the so-called "Rabbinical" period that Watchtower teaches JWs to look down upon so heavily. The reason why it is usually attributed to Ezra (at least traditionally so) is because of the Torah's narrative of the Patriarchs and the Book of Ruth (which is believed to come from the time of Ezra as well).

For instance: Abraham's son Isaac is Jewish because Sarah is Abraham's half-sister, who according to tradition, makes her Jewish. But Abraham's other son, Ishmael is not a Jew because his mother, Hagar is not Jewish--get it? Issac had two Jewish sons: Jacob and Esau. Jacob's sons were Jewish because he married wives who were Jewish relatives but Esau's son's were not Jewish because his wives were Canaanites. Get the picture? And it goes on and on throughout the Torah this way.

You are Jewish, but only if your mother is Jewish "according to what is written in the Torah," because it is just not a book of stories to Jews, but because this it is the Mosaic Law we are taking about.

In the Book of Ruth, the Moabite Ruth converts to worship the God of Abraham, making her a Jew. So when she is married by a "redeemer," she legally becomes the Jewish mother of Obed, the forefather of King David. Why? Because your mother makes you a Jew. This is even mentioned in the geneologies of Jesus.

In fact, the apostle Paul says Gentiles become spiritual Jews, or a spiritual "son" through the martilineality clause at Galatians 4:4-5 due to the fact that Jesus was born via Mary:

But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.

So if you are a Christian and believe you have a spiritual "sonship" it is because of this ancient belief system in Judaism that comes from being "born of a worman, born under the law." That is what Paul was talking about.

543

Encouraging scriptures for the day

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

hello my friends,.

here are some encouraging scriptures for the day:.

revelation 21:2 i also saw the holy city, new jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from god and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.. hebrews 11:10 for he (abraham) was awaiting the city having real foundations, whose designer and builder is god.. revelation 21:24 and the nations will walk by means of its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.. revelation 22:1 and he showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out from the throne of god and of the lamb 2 down the middle of its main street (of the holy city).

PioneerSchmioneer

While there is no text in the Exodus or the rest of the Torah that literally says that the Mosaic Law "was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator," as written at Galatians 3:19, it is obvious that the apostle Paul believed in the Jewish concept from which this stemmed.

It is part of Jewish Tradition that Torah was delievered from Sinai not from God directly but by means of angels.

It can be found, for instance, in the Book of Jubilees where at 1:26-2:1 "the angel of the presence" tells Moses to write down all the details of the Mosaic Law, from the stories of creation found in Genesis to all the other details of the Law afterward.

It should be of interest that the Greek Septuagint, which was the version of the Torah that Christians were using in the first century, especially when quoting to write the New Testament, reads at Deuteronomy 33:2:

The Lord is come from Sina[i]...on his right hand his angels with him.

While the verses at Exodus 23 don't claim that the angel leading and guarding the Hebrews is bringing the Mosaic Law, the ones added to the Greek LXX reading seem to be influenced by Jewish Oral Tradition that reshaped the Hebrew text (Sinai is where the Law came from):

God came from Sinai...Lightning flashing at them from God's right.--RJPS 2023, from the Masoretic Text.