Posts by euripides

4

1st Cent Christian POP

by IP_SEC in

im sure there is a thread dealing with this but for some reason i cant search.

mods see the error below.. witnesses claim the 144,000 started to be filled at pentacost 33 a.d. every christian was of that number.

i'm looking for estimates on the size of the christian population between 33 and 100 a.d. i have to believe taking in to consideration the mass baptisms recorded by lukus that there had to be more than 144,000 anointed christians in the 1st century.

euripides

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/83437/1.ashx

fairly recent discussion actually. Try the Google search through j-w.com next time.

Euripides

10

Is Ritual a Deep Human Need??

by frankiespeakin in

it seem all primative cultures have rituals,,boy have to go thru "rights of passage" in some cultures even today.

what do you think do these rituals that stretch way back in our history do they serve a purpose and fill some type of psychological human need??

or should a person just turn their backs on all of it?

euripides

teasing your man when you want it bad

Yikes. Erm, ritual? I recommend two readings, first Sacred and the Profane by Mircea Eliade, and an essay by Frits Staal, entitled, "The Meaninglessness of Ritual." Unfortunately I don't think its on the net. Here is a good essay which discusses Staal's groundbreaking essay: http://www.evertype.com/misc/ritual.html

Then there's Ritual de lo Habitual by Jane's Addiction...

Euripides

5

How do I find this?

by robhic in

i had saved a link: .

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/70075/1.ashx.

but i can't figure out how to use it in a search capacity to find that post or thread.

euripides

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/search.aspx

Agree with Narkissos, its a little dodgy.

Euripides

17

What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah?

by melmac in

from http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah.html.

dear straight dope:.

genesis 9:20-25 seems to be one of the strangest stories in the bible.

euripides

Narkissos--I agree there is no historical evidence for the claims of the Deuteronomist, perhaps a better way of phrasing that would be the 'political dominance' of the Canaanites in the period in question, regardless of how this came to be. The Canaanites continue to be a political problem.

A pre-Deuteronomist is anything before the Deuteronomist!

"When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him." While it might seem a stretch to interpret see and uncover in Hebrew as idiomatically related, I think the case can be made. What is it that Ham had "done?" The verb has changed again from see in Hebrew. My interpretation of an incestuous moment is not novel, rather it was derived from the speculative musings of a scholar publishing in Vetus Testamentum. Temporally speaking, in the context of this edited and compressed version (almost certainly) of a more full blown story, the shorthand becomes as it reads at present. Either way, the text is elliptical, we don't know what was being referred to. However, in the realm of etiological myth, isn't it feasible that it merely represents another polemic against the Canaanites?

Euripides

17

What's up with the biblical story of drunken Noah?

by melmac in

from http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdrunknoah.html.

dear straight dope:.

genesis 9:20-25 seems to be one of the strangest stories in the bible.

euripides

A couple of months ago I did some extensive research into this peculiar notion of looking on his father's nakedness and this indiscretion. Here are the notes which were the distillation of my research:

Ham becomes the target of an egregious
indiscretion. This is not surprising since Canaan,
taken over by the Israelites in the "J" period,
probably still has pockets of remnant populations of
Canaanites as a thorn in the national side. Given
9:20-27 is a "P" text, however, it is probably a
specific reference to those non-Israelites who
replaced the population of Judah after the forced
evacuation into Exile by the Babylonians. The text
is evasive as to Ham's indiscretion. The phrase
"saw his father's nakedness" in vs. 22 is a veiled
(more specifically, a backward cloaking) reference
to Ham sleeping with Noah's wife, his mother.

[COMPARE Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's
wife shalt thou not uncover: it [is] thy father's
nakedness, AND
Leviticus 20:11 And the man that lieth with his
father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness:
both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood
[shall be] upon them.]

Clearly this is a polemic against the Canaanites as bastards born from an incestuous relationship.
Hence, the command that Canaanites be slaves to both
the progeny of Shem and Japheth.

Euripides

1

New spin on parable of the talents?

by euripides in

luke 19:11-28. i received the following message (abbreviated) from a colleague describing a new interpretation of the identity of the 'nobleman' in the parable of the talents (a/k/a parable of the pounds) as wrought by latin american liberation theology:.

"the nobleman gets rich by charging people.

interest.

euripides

Luke 19:11-28

I received the following message (abbreviated) from a colleague describing a new interpretation of the identity of the 'nobleman' in the parable of the talents (a/k/a parable of the pounds) as wrought by Latin American liberation theology:

"The nobleman gets rich by charging people
interest. All through the Middle Ages, charging
interest was considered a sin because one was not
loving one's neighbor as oneself. (sic) In this light, the
nobleman would not be symbolizing God but rather seen
as a "bad guy". Those servants who also charged
interest were playing along with the game and would
also be evil. The final servant recognized the
profiteering for what it was and chose not to
participate in it. In this sense, Christ was
criticizing this system in his final sentence and
lauding those who do not participate in it."

While this makes for a creative modern spin, I seriously don't think it's textually justified. My understanding (apart from WT) had been than in the Lucan spin to the Churches, the slaves were the collective Churches (and Churches are people) and their talents might have been various forms of resources. Written from the perspective of the churches vis-a-vis the synagogue communities of 80-90 CE, this was an indictment of those Churches who were not cultivating Jesus worship in the way they were supposed to. Further, the author couches the telling of this parable in Jesus' approach to Jerusalem and his assumption of authority, thus leading the hearer/reader to draw the inference that Jesus is the nobleman, not a 'villain.' I am interested in all of your thoughts and comments, both upon the alternate spin, the traditional one, my understanding, and the WT spin, of course!

Euripides

2

Trial Begins in Fatal Stabbing of Greenwich Woman!

by Voyager in

http://www.newschannel8.com/global/story.asp?s=2833442

(stamford-ap, jan. 20, 2005 7:25 am) _ a three-judge panel in stamford has begun hearing testimony in the murder trial of a man charged with fatally stabbing his mother in her greenwich home.. sixty-three-year-old carol ferenz died soon after midnight of january first of 2004, at the westchester county medical center.

euripides

The sad story here is that I knew this woman (some almost twenty years ago). Her son was deranged even then and apparently refused to take his medicine, which led him to his psychotic state. She struck me as somewhat 'flaky,' a little 'airy,' but she really was a nice lady. The son was never part of JWs though, not as if that would've helped him any.

The headline grabber in her case, as so many others, is that she died in part out of her refusal to have a blood transfusion. Another martyr produced by scriptural confusion and moral masochism. So entrenched is their belief in this divine 'ordinance' that even if they survived by violating it, their life would not be worth living in their own mind, or perhaps they rather die than deal with the shame and ignominy they might face from the disapproval of their "brothers and sisters."

My honest opinion is that she was a social misfit some twenty years ago and was attracted to JWs because of the lovebombing and constantly full schedule. No one need be alone anymore if they don't want to be. She was an avid JW literature student and socialized extensively, often inviting "the friends" to her house to enjoy her hospitality. (She was fairly well off.) In some strange karmic sense, it was a trade off--all this 'agape' at a steep price--her life.

Euripides

13

Crucifiction discrepency

by chappy in

all of the wts publications give the date of jesus' crucifiction as 33ce.

the general consensus is that he was born sometime between 3 and 5 bc, meaning the crucifiction would have been around 30ce.

have they ever given an explination for this discrepency?.

euripides

Chappy--I didn't mean to imply you weren't an ex-Witness, I was just being humorous.

Narkissos--I've got Price's book, and I'm sure he wasn't the first. Years ago an English graduate student described the characters of Samuel Beckett as 'crucifictions,' but I'm sure even that had its predecessors. BTW, what do you think of Deconstructing Jesus? He seems to be a strong follower of Mack, who has also made similar arguments most lately in The Christian Myth.

Euripides

13

Crucifiction discrepency

by chappy in

all of the wts publications give the date of jesus' crucifiction as 33ce.

the general consensus is that he was born sometime between 3 and 5 bc, meaning the crucifiction would have been around 30ce.

have they ever given an explination for this discrepency?.

euripides

Isn't the word 'crucifixion' part of the Great Unspoken, a/k/a Words that Give Away You're Not a Witness? A 'cruci-fiction' would certainly made a good play on words. The 'cruci-' part refers to a cross, whereas JWs prefer the word 'impalement.' Yech...

Now on to your question. If there is anything to base an historical opinion on within the Gospel tradition, it would certainly point to either a date in 4 BCE or 7 BCE, alluding to both Herod's reign and astronomical coinciding events. Isn't it strange (well, I suppose it isn't really) that a reference in Daniel is used to figure out dates of Jesus' ministry? Thus Jesus' death comes around 27 or 30 CE, I believe most scholars think the latter date is correct. But WT believes 33 CE is important! Can anyone remember why? I know that FADS believes that they were started then and there at Pentecost of 33 CE, but I'm sure it ties in with the number in a prophecy, thus forcing them to alter history again (cf. 607 vs. 587 BCE)

Euripides

6

Christian Fundamentalists and Adam and Eve

by glitter in

how do people who believe a "day" of creation is a literal 24-hour day ("because the plants would have died") get around adam and eve not dying the same literal 24-hour day as eating from the tree?

jws say that the "day" didn't equal 24 hours and that adam died within a thousand years and a day=1000 years.... but then you have the plants with no light!

it's almost like it's made up or something!

euripides

I imagine with the same disingenuousness they'd say that either

1) though God promised they would die on the 'day' of their eating it He was merciful and let them live, read the rest of the text as literal, OR

2) they did in fact 'die' on that day, but the text demands that this be read not literally, perhaps spiritually? In their link to God? since of course Adam did literally live past that 'day.'

The truth of the matter is that the same word can mean different things at different points of a sentence, in any language, depending on context, multiple meanings, etc. Even if we accept that basic fact, though, this story is at its heart NOT literal on so many levels. And though this won't stop a complete misreading of a mythological story, or the strange tendency to inerrancy on the part of those of fragile faith, a clearer understanding of these texts starts with small victories.

Euripides