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

by Socrateswannabe 20 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  sir82

  Is there any scriptural reference to resurrected humans being referred to as "angels" in the Greek text?

  If not, then the WT's interpretation actually sounds rather reasonable, in this case.
• 

  Socrateswannabe

  Thanks everybody, for the great responses. Okay, so maybe I was wrong and it's not spin. Red Piller, Slimboyfat, and Sir82 make the point that guardian angel is probably a good rendering of this text, and the WTS in their explanation of the scripture offers that up as a possibility. That would, however, mean that in the Jerusalem congregation--the one I suppose where the apostles and older men worshipped--they accepted the traditional Jewish view of guardian angels as protectors of individual worshipers.

  I think it's interesting that the WTS doesn't condemn this belief as heretical, they simply state it and then throw in a bit of misdirection to avoid having to admit that the first century Christians were wrong. If a JW today persisted in teaching in the congregation that each Witness has a guardian angel, I have a feeling some judicial action would be taken against that person. It probably would be considered apostasy. Seems a bit ironic to me.
• 

  slimboyfat

  In the early 2000s there was an infamous edition of the Watchtower that asked the question "Do you have a guardian angel?" on the cover, and completely failed to address the question inside. Much commented on among the brothers at the time as I recall.
• 

  steve2

  The gymnastics one has to perform to make Scripture fit one's cherished beliefs is a source of never-ending astonishment to me. I grow old by the day and hour, but I never become desensitized to the mental gymnastics of "true" believers. Astonishment persists like acne breaking out before a special date.

  If I accepted the literal inerrancy of Scripture - um, I don't - but if I did and I believed that dead people were not alive somewhere else - I'd have a real need for cognitive dexterity regarding Christ's vividly unapologetic accounts of what will happen to the ungodly (they will burn in flames for ever). Now, if the people of his day did not already believe in horrific tortured punishment post death, they sure would after hearing Christ pronounce the destination of the ungodly. Besides, if Christ was as switched on against paganism as the Watchtower portrays him, why would he use a metaphor that brazenly plays right into the hands - and minds - of the pagans?

  The Watchtower is one of numberless religious groups and individuals who have raised to the level of preschool art the "ability" to fit Scripture into already-existing beliefs. Easy if you know how - oh, and being brain dead helps the process.
• 

  Bobcat

  The most interesting thing about this (to me , anyways) is the WT's not giving any sources for the idea of a guardian angel. They don't want anyone doing any further research.

  From the BECNT-Acts commentary (Darrell L. Bock, pp. 428-9):

  Some [in the Acts account] take Rhoda's announcement more seriously and suggest another alternative: that "his angel" is present. Tobit 5:4-16 records an angelic visit by Raphael to heal a blind man but lacks the idea of his being a particular person's angel. Tobit 5:22 has a specific angel accompany a person (on angels, Gen 48:16; Ps 91:11; Dan 3:28; 6:22; Matt 18:10; Heb 1:14; Rev 2-3 has an angel associated with a church). The later rabbinic text Gen. Rabbah 78 [50a] on Gen[esis] 33:10 has a specific personal angel whose look matches that of the person he protects (Str-B 2:707-8; L.A.B. 59.4; T. Jac. 1.10; in early Christian literature, Herm. Mand. 6.2.2; Johnson 1992: 213). It may be that this alternative is seen as indicating that, in the view of some, Peter is already dead and his angel is now present, having appeared after his death. . . The suggestion seems to assume that they simply refuse to accept the possibility that Peter has escaped. Those inside the room do seem to have rejected the idea that God would spare Peter with a miraculous escape. They have been praying for some other outcome (see v. 5). Thus, the idea of a communication from beyond becomes an option, although it is not clear that they think Peter is already dead.

  I notice that whenever a non-WT commentary gives a source from the apocrypha (in this case Tobit), the Society's commentary will usually not cite it. I think they are afraid someone might actually look it up and then get interested in reading the apocryphal books.

  Edited to add:

  The NAC-Acts commentary (John B. Polholl, p. 282) has this:

  This response [that it is "his angel"] reflects the Jewish belief that each person has a guardian angel as his or her spiritual counterpart. It was believed that one's angel often appeared immediately after the person's death, and that idea may lurk behind the response to Rhoda.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  The absurdity of an angel imitating Peter..come on WT!! The WT wants it both ways. They don't want people believing that they have a guardian angel, and they don't want anyone believing that the early Christians believed that when someone died, they went to heaven right away. In order to protect those two fronts they must spin the issue somewhat. I might have some respect for them is they just said. " We have no idea. The most important thing is to believe in Christ." Remember too, that the questions from readers is probably a made up question anyway.

  1 Cor 15:45 does NOT disprove that Peter could have died and then appeared ( even though he did not die at this time ) , because the identity of a soul has never been solved. The WTBTS says that you are a soul, meaning that your life-force is like juice from a battery, and impersonal. If a soul is a physical body plus a spirit then that changes things. Then they throw out the " no immortality " thing, when the what they really mean is no inherent imortality. Imortality is a gift. A gift given through belief and faith in Christ. So just because we cannot be immortal on our own, that does not mean that immortality of the " soul " is wrong. The WTBTS pushes "paradise earth" to motivate the sheep to work for them, so immortality is not something they want the rank and file to consider. According to the GB only they get that. Everyone else has the "prospect" of eternal life, and you could be zapped to death at any moment during eternity. Not so with the GB, they are grandfathered in..

  Anything that you think they may be right on is suspect. Everything circles back to controlling the sheeple.
• 

  jwfacts

  Typical Watchtower Eisegesis. The Watchtower makes the Scripture fit the belief they want to hold. When they have so many variables regarding who goes to heaven and when the resurrection will begin, they are unable to create consistently logical answers.

  They don't want it to be Peter's wandering spirit and they don't want to suggest it is a guardian angel, the two most likely interpretations. So they try to make it appear Jewish Christians were inaccurately describing what they really meant, that it was an angelic messenger representing Peter.
• 

  DATA-DOG

  What JWfact said!
• 

  sarahsmile

  FDSFDS MISS THE LIGHT" Suddenly an angel from the Lord appeared, and light flashed around in the cell. The angel poke" Sounds Lke Jesus as an angel.

  because the Lord is Jehovah. That is no ordinary angel!LOL,LOL.

  See here it is " Now I actually know that Jehovah sent his angel forth and delivered me out of Herod's hand."-Acts 12:1-11.

  When I read this scripture I take the Lord as Jesus. Also another name for Jesus, the Deliver.

  The above is just me reacting!

  As far as FDS interpretation they really should not explain everything in the bible.

  I read the scripture and it sounds like Jewish man thought the girl was mentally ill so he played it down. Basically called her a liar.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  Thanks for starting this thread - it inspired me to do a little research on my own which led to a discussion with my wife.

  Basically I told her there was much more to this passage than the predictable, canned WT response. According to bible commentators, there a multiple ways of viewing this verse: (1) it could have been a human messenger of Peter, not neccesarily angelic (2) it could have been a guardian angel according to one of the Jewish superstitions at the time (3) according to another superstition, you might be visited by an apparition of a person who is about to die which presages their approaching death (4) it is Peters ghost (5) the lame WT interpretation.

  So, I asked my wife Why don't they mention any of these other ideas? Well we came up with a few reasons: (a) the society does not want to cast doubt upon the beleifs of those "early Christians" and they want you to think first century Christians were all part of one cohesive, united religion, which any true student of that time knows is false. (b) they keep it simple because they don't want to confuse dumb people. Here's your answer, that's it, think no further (c) they want to reinforce their own worldview and doctrine and thus feel the need to disambiguate this passage.

  My wife was impressed. I said There's a big and endlessly fascinating world out there outside of WatchtowerLand.