Posts by Narkissos

48

MY FIRST DOUBT

by goldensky in

jw
friends

dear all,.

i posted my first thread a few days ago and some of you asked me questions i'm more than willing to answer.

but there is so much i want to say to you there's no way i can convey all the information at one sitting, so i've decided to tackle one subject at a time, both for the sake of not boring you and because i'd love to know how you feel about each individual topic.

Narkissos

paul from cl.,

Your presentation of the JW doctrine was unusually clear, that's probably why I felt like picking it apart. :)

But you got my drift I suppose: if that's the core of the Christian faith, why is it not simply taught in a similar way at least somewhere in the whole Bible? Why the need to construct an unscriptural doctrinal argument with unscriptural notions, even if you can fit a few verses here and there (preferably out of context)?

JWs would make exactly the same point about "orthodox" syntheses like the Trinity doctrine: no matter how many Bible texts Trinitarians can quote to back it up, the fact remains that the doctrine as such is not taught anywhere in the Bible. This is actually their strongest (negative) point. But ironically they don't see that this applies equally to most of their "positive" doctrines, including the "ransom sacrifice," "perfect Jesus" recovering what "perfect Adam" had lost, the "scales" of divine justice, and so on.

dissed,

I think you are trusting the WT too much on at least two assumptions: (1) that the notion of "ransom sacrifice" in some form was common to most if not all early Christians; (2) that doctrinal development in general emanated from the "apostles in Jerusalem". The whole Pauline corpus (especially Galatians) opposes this idea, although the book of Acts promotes it to an extent. But the christology of Acts is fairly different. In the discourses of Peter, for instance, Jesus' death is not described as a ransom (it is noteworthy that Luke drops the ransom logion, Mark 10:45) or an atoning sacrifice (let alone both!) but as the unjust condemnation of the "righteous one" who is vindicated by his resurrection and elevation to the right hand of God -- a completely different scenario.

48

MY FIRST DOUBT

by goldensky in

jw
friends

dear all,.

i posted my first thread a few days ago and some of you asked me questions i'm more than willing to answer.

but there is so much i want to say to you there's no way i can convey all the information at one sitting, so i've decided to tackle one subject at a time, both for the sake of not boring you and because i'd love to know how you feel about each individual topic.

Narkissos

Hi paul from cl.

Don't you find it strange that THE explanation which makes sense for you is not written down plainly and simply anywhere in the Bible? I mean, God is supposed to have directly inspired hundreds of pages including genealogies, ritual and dietary regulations, love songs and an apostle's request to bring him back his coat, but he forgot the two essential paragraphs you had to write?

Not only is the explanation missing: so are the concepts it presupposes, such as "perfection" (referring to Adam OR Jesus), "right to life" (especially "unused right to life"), "purpose", "living forever" (the last two missing in the Genesis stories at least).

Moreover, didn't Jesus' alleged "unused right to life" cease to be "unused" when he was resurrected from the dead? I know the WT avoids this problem (superficially) by claiming that Jesus was not resurrected as a man (contrary to most of the NT), still it is at odds with Pauline theology which connects salvation with Jesus' resurrection. And there is also the problem of "Eve" as has already been pointed out. Did "perfect Jesus" had one rib more than "perfect Adam" when he "sinned" so as to include "perfect Eve" perhaps? ;)

9

Jesus, Son of Man

by startingover in

why is jesus referred to by that term?

never made any sense to me..

Narkissos

Imo it is practically impossible to understand most of the Gospel references to "the Son of Man" (especially those who Jesus refers to him as a known heavenly figure, in 3rd person) if you ignore the construction of this title / character in Enochian literature, especially the "book of Parables" (1 Enoch 37--71). Playing "Bible only" with this one is playing blind.

97

Satan and demons...? To any who believe in them.

by angel eyes in

any of you who believe in satan or demons, have you had experiences with them?.

have you ever seen satan?.

Narkissos

Excellent point LouBelle.

97

Satan and demons...? To any who believe in them.

by angel eyes in

any of you who believe in satan or demons, have you had experiences with them?.

have you ever seen satan?.

Narkissos

jaguarbass, is that you? ;)

97

Satan and demons...? To any who believe in them.

by angel eyes in

any of you who believe in satan or demons, have you had experiences with them?.

have you ever seen satan?.

Narkissos

Spook: the contradiction you point to exists only because JWs ignore the Jewish literary background of the NT, especially Enochian literature. From the book of Jubilees, for instance, it is very clear that the "evil spirits" (who cause illness etc. like in the Synoptic Gospels or Acts) are not the "fallen angels" who interbred with women and were "abyssed" (by Jude and 2 Peter) but the spirits of their dead progeny (Nephilim or Giants) -- only one tenth of which were let loose according to the Jubilees version of the story.

48

MY FIRST DOUBT

by goldensky in

jw
friends

dear all,.

i posted my first thread a few days ago and some of you asked me questions i'm more than willing to answer.

but there is so much i want to say to you there's no way i can convey all the information at one sitting, so i've decided to tackle one subject at a time, both for the sake of not boring you and because i'd love to know how you feel about each individual topic.

Narkissos

So, maybe we should approach the expulsion from Eden/Death Sentence/Forbidden Fruit fable in the same way

I don't know if we "should" but we certainly can. I would even say that the very context of the story encourages us to do so. Because (1) it is just one of two very different (and mutually incompatible if taken literally) creation stories, the first of which culminates with the creation of mankind as it is, including gender difference, sex and procreation, without any hint of "sin" or "fall"; (2) it actually does not involve "sin" or the "devil" or any promise of "redemption" (all of this was read into the text later); (3) it is practically never referred to anywhere else in the OT (at least by the Jewish canon) as THE explanation for "sin" or "death". This is a late development in some strands of Judaism and early Christianity, culminating with Augustine's doctrine of "original sin".

48

MY FIRST DOUBT

by goldensky in

jw
friends

dear all,.

i posted my first thread a few days ago and some of you asked me questions i'm more than willing to answer.

but there is so much i want to say to you there's no way i can convey all the information at one sitting, so i've decided to tackle one subject at a time, both for the sake of not boring you and because i'd love to know how you feel about each individual topic.

Narkissos

Hola goldensky :)

You might be interested in the following thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/175312/1/Redemption-Reductions

The notion of sacrifice, especially expiatory or atoning sacrifice, was only one among the many interpretive models NT writers used as they were trying to make sense of the "mystery" constituting the core of their faith. The distinct notion of ransom (which has basically nothing to do with sacrifice) was another. Neither was originally central to early Christianity.

Maybe you might give a second thought to behemot's point about sacrifice in the Ancient world and the Near East in particular. Sacrifices (whether human or animal) to deities were definitely not an Israelite specificity. The sacrificial texts which happened to make their way into "the Bible" describe (and sometimes rationalise) them in their particular ways: when you read them you are approaching another culture which doesn't need to make sense for you.

5

Animals, the Resurrection and the Future

by Cold Steel in

since jehovah's witnesses reject the notion the idea that human beings are spirits, what is the general thought in the community regarding animals?

are they considered intelligent?

if so, are they covered under christ's eternal atonement?.

Narkissos

To your other questions on JW beliefs:

I remember that they have occasionally toyed with ideas like space travel, populating other planets or even God creating new things after the millenium. It's usually a hypothetical half-sentence in WT literature with a warning against speculation which fuels speculation in the JW community for years...

They do believe (against the text imo) that the "days" in Genesis 1 are eras; used to be 7,000 years periods (that was integral to the calculation of 1975 as last end-of-the-world date) but now it's only "thousands of years".

JWs aside, an interesting view is the (proto-Sadducee?) one in Ecclesiastes 3: "I said in my heart with regard to human beings that God is testing them to show that they are but animals. For the fate of humans and the fate of animals is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and humans have no advantage over the animals; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?" This is actually a one-world view, which is incompatible with notions like "new world" (nothing new under the sun), paradise or resurrection.

35

Is the "torture stake" dogma a reverse idolatry in itself?

by JWoods in

jw
friends

witnesses have famously (and gleefully) tossed the usual christain "t" cross symbol overboard after having used it themselves for quite some time.

one common arguement is that "if christ had been shot by a rifle, you would not worship the image of the gun" -.

and yet, they do not shy away from insisting on the notion of the upright torture stake.

Narkissos

It is interesting that the blood that was sprinkled before the mercy seat by the high priest was in the form of a cross.

Says who (and when)?

A "cross" ( +, x ) being a very basic shape and graphism it is bound to be found practically everywhere as a sign or symbol in human cultures. Typically the name for the Hebrew letter taw which used to look like a X 'cross' is used in the generic sense of "sign" inEzekiel 9. Another interesting case is Job 31:35, hn-twy, "this is my taw": my mark, signature, or perhaps last word (as taw is the last letter in the alphabet like Greek ômega)?