I'm with ya, designs. Religion is not only not necessary to a positive and healthy society, it is counter-productive to one. The Golden Rule should be more than adequate, if only people weren't so drawn to power. Some are drawn to exercising power over others and the vast majority are drawn to having someone else exercise power over them because it saves them the hassle of thinking for themselves.
Blondie's Comments You Will Not Hear at the 05-09-10 WT Study (BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF?)
by blondie 21 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
designs
Mad-
A client and her daughter traveled to Tibet a couple of years ago in much anticipation of the experience being with the Monks and the Shrine. The Monks were lazy and the place was filthy, it took awhile for the lessons to sink in, sort of like The Wizard of OZ.
Home, take care of home and then expand the experience.
Faith in Action..
-
Leolaia
Is there historical confirmation as to this baptism in so many locations at one time in Jerusalem?
No, although there is only one source on goings-on in Jerusalem during the period, Josephus. It is generally recognized that the author of Acts gives a very idealized portrait in the early chapters and becomes more and more historical as the narrative progresses.
Why does the WTS say "proselytes" rather than "Jewish proselytes"? The WTS teaches that these would not have been Godfearers only but had been circumcised.
I think that is the correct understanding of the text.
There were seven steps between Gentile and fully converted proselyte (quoting Shaye Cohen's classification scheme from HTR, 1989): (1) admiring some aspect of Judaism, (2) acknowledging the power of the Jewish god by including him into one's personal pantheon, (3) being a benefactor of Jews and Jewish causes, (4) practicing some rituals of the Jews, (5) venerating the god of the Jews to the extent of denying other gods, (6) joining the Jewish community, such as attending synagogue, (7) converting to Judaism, submitting to circumcision if male, and "becoming a Jew". Thus a Godfearer like Cornelius from ch. 10 of Acts would have been at stage 1-4 but not 5 because as a member of the military he would have participated in the military cult. The "proselytes" (prosélutoi) mentioned in 2:11 would have likely been converts at step 6 or 7, traveling from Rome in the company of Jews to a religious festival in Jerusalem that involved table fellowship, as the term usually referred to those who had undertaken full conversion. These were likely either slaves owned by Jews, who would have been circumcised when acquired, or spouses of Jews (whether male or female, in the case of the former also likely circumcised). Josephus is quite telling when he describes Gentile converts to Judaism as those who "have accepted the customs of the Jews" (Vita 23.113); he takes for granted that such people have been circumcised (31.149), as this was one of the most basic customs involved. The most interesting parallel to Acts 2 is found in Bellum Judaicum where Josephus describes the situation in Antioch where the Jews there "always drew to their religious ceremonies a great multitude of Greeks whom they made in some way a part of themselves". Also interesting is the statement in the Acts of Pilate when the high priests define the term "proselyte" as referring to "those who were born as Greeks and now have become Jews" (2:1-4).
Also v. 5 which refers to the group as a whole describes them as "pious Jews" (Ioudaioi andres eulabeis), which is redundant, and many MSS have removed the unnecessary Ioudaioi. But since this number includes prosélutoi, the reason for describing the group as a whole as "Jews" is to emphasize that these were Jews, whether proselyte or not. This is particularly the case since there would otherwise be a tension with the Cornelius story in ch. 10-11. For we read in 10:45-46: "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles (kai epi ta ethné). For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God". This is clearly a new situation involving the same pouring out of the Spirit and glossolalia mentioned in ch. 2. And the point is emphasized again in ch. 11, where Peter says "the Holy Spirit came on them (autous) as he had come on us (hémas) at the beginning (en arkhé)". That "beginning" is nothing else than Pentacost, and here the contrast between "us" and "them" entails that what happened in the "beginning" was the pouring of the Holy Spirit on Jews, not Gentiles.
Were there restrictions on the proselytes that natural born Jews were not subject to?
Not that I know of, if they were fully accepted. In the Talmud, proselytes once circumcised ritually are "like an Israelite in all respects" (b. Yebamot 47b). But that was at the will of the community, and I would guess that many were not treated equally as natural-born Jews in practice.
***Bearing Witness (bt) chap. 3 p. 27 “Filled With Holy Spirit” ***They were considered Jews in all respects, since they accepted the God and the Law of Israel, rejected all other gods, underwent circumcision (if male), and joined themselves to the nation of Israel.
--------------------------------
Do you see a similarity to the WTS saying "Jehovah's witnesses and their companions" or "the anointed and their companions"?This is a really good point! Particularly since in Greek prosélutos was the term used in the LXX to render the Hebrew word for "alien resident" in the Pentateuch (cf. Exodus 23:4, Leviticus 16:29, Numbers 9:14, Deuteronomy 1:16), the very class of persons that the Society wants to identify the "great crowd" with. This doesn't sit too well with statement quoted here that proselytes were considered Jews in all respects, when the "great crowd" are always construed as lying outside "spiritual Israel".
-
designs
Leolaia-
This was one of the many Ooppsies Rutherford made in his analogy of Spiritual Israel in the book RICHES. The Jonadab class was suppose to be a picture of the Great Crowd but Jonadab would have been a convert to Judaism, along with dozens of other local tribes and families. Jonadab would have sat a celebrated in Passover like any other Jew.
-
Leolaia
"The entire congregation of the sons of Israel shall (eat of the Pascha). But if any guest (prosélthé) should draw near to you to keep the pascha to the Lord, you shall circumcise every male of his, and then he shall draw near to keep it, and he shall be like a native of the land (autokhthón tés gés). No uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native-born and for the guest (prosélutó) among you who has drawn near (prosélthonti)" (Exodus 23:47-49 LXX).
-
bobld
Thanks, Blondie
Q16/17. How ironical when the GB says "in the name of" need not imply the name of a person.Yet when you ask them, did Jesus use the name of "Jehovah" in the NT,they will say yes and use MATT 28:19,20.I for one could never understand how "in the name of the Father" equals to Jehovah's name.
B
-
logic
They have to screw their shoes on. I love that one.
-
-
mindmelda
Outlaw, they're so crooked that they shit corkscrews.
-
wobble
SO, having considered Christ's command of how to baptise, will they change the wording of their vows to come into line with Matt 28 ?
I doubt it, it just shows how they know they have the power by their mind control to cover subjects like this, and the Dubs will suppress the natural questions that follow.
BIG THANKYOU BLONDIE ! For your work on this, it prepares me for any convo. I may have with a Dub, without this I would not have a clue what trash they were considering.
Thanks again,
Wobble