The WTS has an ANSWER/SPIN for everything! Acts 12:15

by Socrateswannabe 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Socrateswannabe
    Socrateswannabe

    Per the Ministry School schedule, the bible reading continues in the book of Acts. In chapter 12 King Herod arrests Peter and throws him in prison, meaning to "produce him" for the Jews after the passover (evidently to be executed). An angel appears to Peter in prison, releases his bonds and walks him out of the gate of the jail. Peter hotfoots it over to John Mark's mom's house, where there is a gathering of the Jerusalem congregation. Peter knocks on the door, a young girl answers and is so astonished at seeing Peter that she leaves him at the door and runs into the crowd to report what she's seen. The congregation first says she's mad, then they say, and this is according to the NWT: "It is his angel."

    How do you take that? That the congregation was afraid that Peter had already been executed, and was appearing to them as Jesus did after his so-called resurrection? If that's so, wouldn't that indicate that at least some Christians of the time believed in an instant resurrection? Not according to the answer spin given in the Questions from Readers in the 6/1/05 Watchtower:

    Upon hearing that the imprisoned Peter was at the door, why did the disciples say: "It is his angel"?-Acts 12:15.

    The disciples may erroneously have assumed that an angelic messenger representing Peter stood at the gate. Consider the context of this passage.
    Peter had been arrested by Herod, who had put James to death. So the disciples had good reason to believe that Peter would meet a similar end. Bound by chains, the imprisoned Peter was guarded by four shifts of four soldiers each. Then, one night he was miraculously freed and led out of the prison by an angel. When Peter finally realized what was happening, he said: "Now I actually know that Jehovah sent his angel forth and delivered me out of Herod's hand."-Acts 12:1-11.
    Peter immediately went to the house of Mary the mother of John Mark, where a number of the disciples were gathered. When he knocked on the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda went to answer. Upon recognizing Peter's voice, she ran to tell the others without even letting him in! At first, the disciples could not believe that Peter was at the gate. Instead, they erroneously assumed: "It is his angel."-Acts 12:12-15.
    Did the disciples believe that Peter had already been put to death and that his disembodied spirit was at the gate? This could hardly be the case, for Jesus' followers knew the Scriptural truth about the dead-that they are "conscious of nothing at all." (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10) What, then, could the disciples have meant when they said: "It is his angel"?
    Jesus' disciples knew that throughout history, angels rendered personal assistance to God's people. For example, Jacob spoke of "the angel who has been recovering me from all calamity." (Genesis 48:16) And regarding a young child in their midst, Jesus told his followers: "See to it that you men do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that their angels in heaven always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven."-Matthew 18:10.
    Interestingly, Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible renders the word ag′ge·los ("angel") as "messenger." It appears that there was a belief among some Jews that each servant of God had his own angel-in effect, a "guardian angel." Of course, this view is not directly taught in God's Word. Still, it is possible that when the disciples said, "It is his angel," they were assuming that an angelic messenger representing Peter stood at the gate.

    Am I the only one who thinks this makes absolutely no sense at all and is total spin???

  • Ding
    Ding

    "Did the disciples believe that Peter had already been put to death and that his disembodied spirit was at the gate? This could hardly be the case, for Jesus' followers knew the Scriptural truth about the dead-that they are "conscious of nothing at all." (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)"

    The WT attributes this "guardian angel" interpretation to "some Jews." Does the WT think those Jews were right or wrong in what they believed? The people who were saying this was "Peter's angel" were first century Christians, not just "some Jews." Does this mean that first century Christians believed that each Christian have a guardian angel who look just like them and deliver messages? If so, then why don't JWs believe this today? Aren't they always claiming to believe the same thing that first century Christians believed?

    In addition to this sleight of hand ("some Jews believed..."), the GB's use of Ecclesiastes 9:5 illustrates the WT's flawed method of interpreting the Bible -- taking part of a verse out of context and then requiring all the rest of the Bible to be understood to conform to it.

    Instead of considering everything the Bible has to say on a given subject -- such as what happens to a person after physical death -- the WT uses isolated quotes as mantras to support their doctrines and ignores everything else the Bible says that doesn't fit into that paradigm.

    In this case, they quote the first half of Ecclesiastes 9:5. They ignore the second half of verse 5 and all of verse 6, which say that the dead have no more reward and no more part forever in anything that happens under the sun.

    If the book of Ecclesiastes were being presented in the Bible as God's point of view, then the whole teaching of a resurrection and paradise earth would be gone and the WTS could close up shop.

    But if the WT ever acknowledged that Ecclesiastes is written from the point of view of a man who considers this life to be meaningless (see Ecc. 1:2), then their Ecclesiates 9:5 proof-text would prove nothing about what really happens after death.

    Instead, the WT leaders follow their usual technique of quoting half a verse out of context over and over ("the dead are conscious of nothing... the dead are conscious of nothing... the dead are conscious of nothing...") so JWs will pay no attention to other passages that don't square with this WT dogma, including the rest of that verse and the verse immediately following!

  • DeWandelaar
    DeWandelaar

    They really like to twist things around that's for sure

  • punkofnice
    punkofnice

    The disciples may erroneously have assumed

    May = weasel word.

    I didn't bother reading beyond that as all other arguments are nullified by the word 'may'

  • prologos
    prologos

    The other BIG question about the reading is,

    Luke calls it the passover.

    was that not suppsed to be MEMORIAL Time?

    Had they forgotten already the command to do this in MEMORY at that NIGHT?

    why were they not passing the bread and wine under the full moon as per wt illustrations?

    why was a prayer meeting mentioned but nothing at all about the BIG DEAL?

    May be they all had the earthly hope and did not bother?

    Why did peter not get the soldiers to get him wine and bread like the brothers, sisters in prison now?

    Would have been a nice touch for him to partake before seeing his life snuffed out.

  • Red Piller
    Red Piller

    Actually, there are other opinions that support the guardian angel comment.

    This footnote is from the Comtemporary English Version:

    Footnotes:
    1. 12.15 his angel: Probably meaning “his guardian angel.”

    Knox Bible:

    15 Thou art mad, they told her, but she still insisted that it was so; and then they said, It must be his guardian angel.

  • Kensei01
    Kensei01

    The wbts loves to comment on what "they " say someone believes or thinks. No one has any idea at all what those disciples believed or knew; they have no clue whether they knew or even believed what Ecc 9 says. This is just another one of many cases where the wtbs tries to explain something that is obviously unexplainable and in reality always will be. I love it when they claim as fact that they KNOW what some bible character believed or was thinking at any given time in scripture when there is no way of knowing.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    Guardian angel seems like a reasonable reading to me.

    The anchor Bible commentary says it refers to a guardian angel, and that it was a common belief in the ancient world that people had an angelic double.

    The Watchtower doesn't seem so keen on guardian angels however so they don't call it that.

  • DATA-DOG
    DATA-DOG

    I was just thinking of this last night! What did those first century Christians believe? We don't know exactly. The WTBTS seems to like the guardian angel theory more than Peter being resurrected to heaven after his execution. They are fond of drawing attention to the fact that the Bible is not specific on a matter when it suits them.

    I can't say what angle the WTBTS is going for here. I would guess that they don't mind a guardian angle teaching. After all they like to teach that JW's have angelic protection while in service to the GB, despite car accidents, mobbings, and dog attacks. Peter going to heaven at his death doesn't fit into the the JW belief sytem as well.

    This is interesting, " Upon recognizing Peter's voice, she ran to tell the others without even letting him in! At first, the disciples could not believe that Peter was at the gate. Instead, they erroneously assumed: "It is his angel."-Acts 12:12-15" AND " Still, it is possible that when the disciples said, "It is his angel," they were assuming that an angelic messenger representing Peter stood at the gate." LOL!! I guess that Peter's " gaurdian angel " just felt like imitating Peter's voice for Rhoda?! Why not just say, " Greetings Rhoda I am an angel of the Lord, Peter is still in jail, but its all good, I have his back! Just givin' you the 411, ya dig?" Wait, that's because Peter WAS NOT IN JAIL!!!

    They WTBTS is just like the kid we all knew. He always had to be right. Everything you ever told him was answered by, " Ya, I know." Even when he was wrong, hw would never admit it...

  • Comatose
    Comatose

    May

    perhaps

    it seems

    could it be

    apparently

    evidently

    one bible scholar says

    we can be sure

    The above are all weasel words used to prop up unscriptural ideas in their writings. My favorite is "evidently".

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit