When did the Last Days start in the first century

by wizzstick 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  mP

  QC:

  How exactly does a man with guts that burst then manage to also hang themselves ?

  So why cant the diff gospels agreeon what the names of hte apostles are ? Most people go by one name, surely it makes sense to use the person popular name when writing an account. I didnt ask what the names meant, i m questioning why the differences. Its interesting you failed to address this problem. Then we have the absurd problem that jews are using greek names. Peter himself wouldnt eat with gentiles (paul tells us that) and yet he uses a greek name in a country that basically hates everyone who is not jewish seeing them as different and lesser.

  Its like the key nazis adopting jewish names, its just not going to happen.
• 

  QC

  YOU ARE OFF TOPIC, last comment:

  guts that burst then manage to also hang themselves

  It's the other way around, hangings that manage to burst their guts is plausible: Stressed out people (like Judas) hanging themselves hastily (unsecured properly) swinging in time (putrefied) can fall splattering guts.

  Jewish nicknames having Greek, Roman or Persian influence is common in Hebrew history.

  Gospels are a collage. Primarily they complement each other adding details as well as emphasis. This ASYMMETRY is how you know it’s genuine (not measured, CAN'T MAKE IT UP).

  NO COLLUSION.

  I’m done discussing this.

  STOP DISRESPECTING THIS THREAD!

  One more distraction from you and I'll file a complaint.
• 

  mP

  guts that burst then manage to also hang themselves

  QC

  It's the other way around, hangings that manage to burst their guts is plausible: Stressed out people (like Judas) hanging themselves hastily (unsecured properly) swinging in time (putrefied) can fall splattering guts.

  MP:

  So why doesnt it say he was hanged first ? is that really a complete responsible historian to omit such a vital fact ?

  QC

  STOP DISRESPECTING THIS THREAD!

  One more distraction from you and I'll file a complaint.

  mP:

  Thats fine, tell Jehovah to strike me dead the day after tomorrow because im going out tomorrow. If he does nothing , whic him pretty sure he will, that means your lying by stating im disrespectful.

  The truth is the gospels are making stuff up and thats why they have mistakes, contradictions and more.
• 

  mP

  QC

  Jewish nicknames having Greek, Roman or Persian influence is common in Hebrew history.

  MP:
  Really a man who wont eat with the greeks, wont preach to the greeks, takes a greek name. Yes that sounds believable. Given that most of judea spoke was poor and spoke aramaic, you goto wonder why they are all using Greek names instead of their original.

  How absurd it would b e for people with western names to use Chinese variants back at home instead of their local original names. Thats totally nutty.
• 

  mP

  QC

  I’m done discussing this

  mP:

  Its amazing that we shodl respect for you opinion simply because you are the almighty expert of the universe. The fact you cant give us an example to back any of your assertions is sad. Go cry like a good muslim who only knows how to scream and cry when someone says something against islam.
• 

  *lost*

  ummmm .... according to 'the book' are we not now, living in the last days, and we are being stored up for judgement, based on how we live our lives, etc.

  Since 'man' killed jesus, what more would god have to do with them ? so it could be said that everything depends on Jesus as our mediator and saviour, on our behalf.

  WT pushes je-hovah as God, we now know this name is a lie, and as the jw tell us, your either for god or against God, one cannot slave for two masters. so they have already condemned themselves, unwittingly, because of the lie's surrounding the name.so theoretically, all jw's are actually worshipping satan. They have pushed Jesus into the background.

  QC - think you might find this interesting, let me know your thoughts.

  I stumbled on this, this morning whilst researching.

  The TWO '' Fields of Blood'' (source... www.jba.gr) .................The Journal of Biblical Accuracy

  There were TWO fields of blood.

  Matt 27 - ''agros'' a field, bought with the 30 pcs blood money, Chief Priests.

  Acts 1 - ''chorion'' a property, bought with money stolen from the money bag, by Judas.

  ''wages of iniquity'' '' wages of unrighteousness'' ill gotten money.

  There are two different pieces of land/property.

  different Greek words are used for each of them.

  This is lost in the English translation that translates both of these pieces as ''firld of blood''.

  the greek text makes it clear that only the piece of land referred to in Mtt could be characterised as a field. ''agros'' = field

  Acts - the Greek word is ''chorion'' that means ' a particular place, landed property, estate.'

  Therefore the priests and the elders bought a ''agros'' field. Judas bought a ''chorion''

  What the priests bought was called ''agros of blood''

  what Judas bought was called ''chorion of blood''

  And the two pieces of land are so called for different reasons.

  ''agros of blood'' so called as it was bought with the 30 pcs of silver 'blood money'

  ''chorion of blood'' that Judas bought was called like this because Judas committed suicide there.

  1. Different Buyers. Matt, priests. Acts, Judas

  2. Different Money. Mtt, 30 pcs blood money. Acts stolen money from money bag, by Judas. ''wages of iniquity''.

  3. Different Greek words. Priests ''agros'' field. Judas ''chorion'' property.

  4. Different reasons for their names.
• 

  EdenOne

  MP, sone observations regarding a few of your comments.

  1. Regarding Simon taking the greek name Peter.

  Remember that it wasn't Simon that renamed himself as "Peter". It was Jesus that gave him that name, a word play that would fit his role as a foundation stone of the new christian church [Jesus himself being the 'cornerstone']; At the same time, even if Simon personally had issues with overcoming his encrusted Jewish attitude towards gentiles, later in life he had to correct his attitude, even several times. To be called by a greek name would be a reminder that he had to broaden his views.

  2. Regarding the death of Judas.

  Why is it so far fetched that Judas could have hunged himself from a tree, and later either the branch or the rope collapsed and he fell down to a cliff or a rocky ground below and his belly bursted with the impact, especially if he had been under the sun for a few days, decomposing rapidly, before being discovered? This would lead to two hearsay versions: One, that he has hung himself; another, that he had fallen and bursted his guts out. It's evident that both Luke and Matthews weren't eyewitnesses to the fact, and each one relied on third party accounts from people who retrieved the body of Judas. In fact, it's entirely plausible that there were no eyewitnesses of the death of Judas. Only those who found and retrieved his corpse deducted the way he died, which lead to two versions of the story.

  3. Regarding the different names of Judas / Thaddaeus.

  Why is it such a problem? I would be concerned if the Bible would give different names for his father. As for being known for two different names, well, I got two surnames and two family names. Plus, I have two nicknames, depending on family endearing nick or schoolmates nick they gave me. What's so difficult that Judas could be nicknamed Thaddaeus [large-hearted] by his close ones?

  -----

  Also, regarding Luke being a competent 'historian' or not, why are people judging Luke, a physician of the 1st century, so harshly, because he didn't follow the rules of modern historiographical techniques ? Are you even serious? Modern historiography was brought about by Eward Gibbon (1737-1794), an english scholar, with his landmark work The History of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (1778). Luke is no less accurate than Herodotus or Thucydides, historians of the classic antiquity.

  Actually, I find the whole notion of Luke as an 'historian' to be a false issue. At best, he was impelled by the Holy Spirit to write the chronicles of Jesus' life and the early years of the Christian congregation. That's all there is to it. There was a gap that needed to be fulfilled. The Holy Spirit didn't whisper in his ears all the information, otherwise there wouldn't be the need for him to research for information from eyewitnesses. I believe that his gospel was actually the last one to be produced, probably at the same time, and independently from the gospel of John.

  Eden
• 

  mP

  Eden:

  Greek names.

  Yes i think we all know that jesus named Peter. It just seems very strange that so many apostles are given greek names when they were very proud jews. These same proud jews didnt want to preach to non jews, or even eat with them.

  The reason is of course the gospels were written in Greek so they give the characters Greek names. This naming and other factors show they were not written by jewish people.

  Re Judas:

  Are you serious, Judas hanged himself over a cliff and then the tree snapped and his guts exploded when he hit the ground. If he hanged himself then he was dead before his guts burst, you cant die from both at the same time.

  Apostles with numerous names.

  Your not being fair in your response on this. Your surname may be a compound but its not really two names. I seriously doubt half your family friends call you by the first and the other half by another. I also doubt your collection of identification and papers use a mixture or both. Considering hte gospels purpose is to inform, theres no value in confusing people by using multiple names for the same character.

  That said i have never met or heard of anyone who has multiple names like those of the apostles. These are regular names not writer or professional names or slang.
• 

  mP

  Eden

  Also, regarding Luke being a competent 'historian' or not, why are people judging Luke, a physician of the 1st century, so harshly, because he didn't follow the rules of modern historiographical techniques ? Are you even serious? Modern historiography was brought about by Eward Gibbon (1737-1794), an english scholar, with his landmark work The History of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire (1778). Luke is no less accurate than Herodotus or Thucydides, historians of the classic antiquity.

  mP:

  Luke makes many mistakes. The geology of Jesus is the perfect example. We both know that Matt and Luke give years for Jesus birth that are completely incompatible by a difference of ten years. There are of coufse many other problems.

  Who exactly is calling Luke a historian ? my dog is a historian there i said , that doesnt make him a good historian.

  How is Edward Gibbons contribution in anyway a validation of Lukes historical ability ? Concentrate on Luke.

  Who said H or T were accurate historians ? The quality of H or T has no bearing of judging Luke. I like ice cream, that doesnt make L a good physician.
• 

  EdenOne

  MP

  Naturally, that the Gospels were written in a time where the gentiles had already been admitted to the Christian church and probably outnumbered already the Christians of Jewish origin. Besides, the Jews that got scattered throughout the empire used the greek language. For practical reasons, the gospels were produced in greek, given the target audience. Although Matthew seems to have been produced with a Jewish audience with ties to the homeland in mind.

  As for the death of Judas, no one was factual eyewitness to the event. So, based on accounts given by the people who found his corpse, there are two possible explanations to his death. The plausible truth of the matter might be a combination of both. Matthew went with one explanation, Luke went with another.

  As far as multiple names: Professionally, I'm known by my family name from my father's side; Among my family and friends, I'm known by my first name. Among former school mates, I'm known by one nickname I had in school. Some family members still call me after the nickname I had as a young child. All are on record in written form.

  As far as Luke the 'historian', I was merely given a contrast with Edward Gibbon. You can't expect the level of accuracy and scholarship from Luke as you would expect from a modern historian. It's a much fairer comparison if you compare his chronicles with the ones of other more or less contemporary historians like Herodotus or Tucydides, who made mistakes, but still are considered credible.

  Note: The Watchtower calls Luke an 'historian'. That's not an accurate term for him.

  Eden