Women of the 144,000

by cameo-d 5 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • cameo-d
    cameo-d

    The Gospel of Thomas (found in a Coptic translation at Nag Hammadi and in Greek fragments at Oxyrhynchus), for example, presents 114 "secret" sayings of Jesus, many of which are rephrased quotations from Jewish scripture and over half resemble dialogue which turns up in the New Testament.

    "Saying 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

    What does this Saying mean to you? Can you determine the underlying meaning? Please discuss.

  • moggy lover
    moggy lover

    I am sorry but I have no idea what this passage means since I have not made a study of the Gospel of Thomas. Many consider it some sort of Gnostic development of a genunine Gospel tradition that developed during the mid to latter part of the 2C AD. Under those circumstances it could not have been written by the Thomas it supposedly represents. But discussion of this material is a path I don't want to go down.

    I think that confining this discussion to the Watchtower concept of the 144k "anointed" and women is complicated enough. According to the Watchtower the 144k:

    1 Started in 33 "CE" and included every member of those who were called to be believers during the first century AD, supposedly including women.

    2 Further, according to Watchtower, these "anointed" members were all part of the FDS: "The expression faithful and discreet slave refers to ALL members of that anointed nation as a group on earth at any particular time from 33CE till now" [Watchtower Mar 1st, 2004, page 10]

    3 If this refers to all members of the "anointed", and since the primary object of the FDS is to define theology which is to be believed in as definitive, a process that the Watchtower defines as "feeding", the question we need to ask is:

    What part do the female members of this FDS 144k play in this feeding process, seeing that the Watchtower insists on the possession of a penis as a prime requirement for being such a formulator of theology, or in other words, a feeder, not eater, of the "spiritual food". Therefore the female members of the "anointed" during the first century did not "feed" the domestics, they merely ate what was "cooked up" and presumably have not done so in the "modern era either.

    If, by 31st Dec 100 AD there were some 100,000 Christians both male and female, and some 30,000 in the modern era, that would leave just 44,000 to run through the rest of the history of Christianity [some 1779 years, seeing the Watchtower started in 1879] or some 3 a year. [It is estimated that by the end of the first century the Christians made up at least 5 percent of the population of the Roman Empire which was estimated to be at least 20 million, hence they could have numbered at least 1 million. But that is another conundrum for the Watchtower]

    Suppose all three in a year were women? Who then would do the feeding? Or would they all wear hats while doing this? What about our "modern" era? Do any female members of the "anointed" qualify as the FDS? If they do, then how do they participate in this feeding? Are they permitted to write Watchtower Study articles which clearly defines the parameters of Watchtower theology? Evidently not, since all this is left to the male members of the anointed. Writing obscure articles about the Amazon River, taken from reference articles in Encyclopedias, or writing simplistic letters to the "real" FDS does not count.

    It becomes obvious that the Watchtower "definition" of the FDS as members of the 144k is ill-conceived. I propose they will have to redefine this by saying:

    " The expression faithful and discreet slave refers to all male members of that spiritual nation as a group on earth at any given time"

    Since the primary object in having an FDS is to conceive theology for the rank and file, and since women are disbarred from this, such a redefinition becomes imperaritive.

  • cameo-d
    cameo-d

    Moggy: " seeing that the Watchtower insists on the possession of a penis as a prime requirement for being such a formulator of theology, or in other words, a feeder, not eater, of the "spiritual food". "

    Watchtower is quite the purveyor of rather twisted misaligned concepts. However, the jest of their poor attempt at a parable is that a 'feeder' is a leader, whereas, an 'eater' is a dependent follower.

    I think you also have to bear in mind the status of women at that time. The traditions of submission, not being allowed to speak in some cultures, the subservience, the fact that in many cultures women were considered chattel and property. For a woman to speak out, or to have her own opinion, or to find herself as an influence on others would be acts that might define her "as a male". A woman with any independent thinking or reasoning would be "as a male"; women were not supposed to think, but to only do as they were instructed.

    Moggy: "Therefore the female members of the "anointed" during the first century did not "feed" the domestics, they merely ate what was "cooked up" and presumably have not done so in the "modern era either."

    If this analogy is coming from WT publications, it really is a piss poor attempt at "parable" designed to conceal what outright plain truthful language could accomplish. Not only that, I do not think it is truthful nor documented with any reliability; it's well known that WT does not publish footnotes or documentation to uphold their faulty ideas. In considering the original quote from the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus said that he himself would teach Mary so that she might be a leader and powerful influence of his teachings. Of course, since these documents were not approved by the Roman political pope god when deciding which books should comprise the official book called the Bible, some religious people turn their eyes away from even considering these sources for possible information and revelations.

    It is scriptural that Jesus spent time especially with Mary and Martha in teaching them the principles of his philosophies, and therefore shows that he did not hold the common view of "women not allowed" which dictated the decorum of that era. These telling cameos of his personality convince me that The Gospel of Thomas is very possibly a credible source in some respects. When the apocryphal scripts uphold actions that are shown in Bible scripture, I see this as confirmation, or a 'second witness' as it were.

  • cameo-d
    cameo-d

    ???

  • serein
    serein

    iv been reading about books not put in the bible like the book of thomas and the book of mary magdaline and the book of enoc,

    if found them a very interesting read,

    also watched a tv program on the subgect a few months back and they were saying on it that they were taken out of the bible by preists in the early years cant rem what year they said

    and disregarded burnt and stuff cos they dint agree wi them and only had books they agreed wi put in to the bible.so if that were true then we got a small percentage of what we should have to read from the scriptures

    and if we did get a book brought out wi them all back in then what would be revield then,

    i could have it all wrong bt im going on the tv program and what iv been reading on line.

  • Ding
    Ding

    I personally consider the Gospel of Thomas to be gnostic nonsense, which is one reason why Christians have not recognized it as authoritative.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit