Posts by rick

11

The effects of exiting a cult

by Sirona in

i consider jehovahs witnesses to be a cult, or at least a high control group (cult-like).. i recognise within myself some side effects of having been a jw.

here is an interesting article dealing with cults (it does list some extreme cult tactics).

i'm going to quote just part of the article regarding the effects on someone who has left a cult.

Greetings everyone,

I'm Rick and have been "around" JWDF for just about a year. However, due to a crashing of a hard drive, a new ISP, and username (my nic); I now appear as a "newbie."

I was originally referred to JWDF by an ex-JW I met at Beliefnet. com (where I have approximately 12,500 posts). This person and I "met" on a thread that was discussing "apocalyptic literature" (such as the book of Revelation). He knew that this "topic" was often posted about here, so I came.

Thank you, Sirona, for the article and for being so "open" about your struggles... I can relate.

I have never been a Jehovah's Witness. I, too, have a background by way of my upbringing, in a "cult-like" group. To wit, I was raised in a family of hyper-dispensationalist (and exceedingly strict/separatist) Pentecostals. I had a teenage rebellion phase, but returned to my childhood faith (or religion), at age 19. Two years later, I had joined the Assemblies of God church (leaving the "separatist" church of my upbringing behind) and was enrolled at the A/G's main Bible College in their headquarter city of Springfield, Missouri.

During around my junior year, I had a crisis of faith. I had taken courses in hermeneuitcs & exegesis ("how to interpret the Bible") and found, in my devotional readings, that the A/G were teaching false doctrines. Namely, both premillennialism (which is shared by JW's) and the "pre-tribulational rapture of the church." The Tim LaHaye "Left Behind" book series are the current out-cropping of this strange and non-biblical teaching.

I left the college 11 hours short of a Bachelor's degree due to this. I reasoned (as a young person), "If they are wrong about these things, what else are they wrong about?" In fact, I wound up leaving any kind of faith in Jesus Christ behind (outside of his being an important religious figure)... and eventually became an atheist, in 1999.

1999, however, proved to be something "else" to me. After around 6 months of being an atheist (it's all myths & bullshit) -- I had a "revelation of Jesus Christ," as Paul once said it. I can't adequately explain this in words (even to people I know well) but I can say I have been a "christian"... ever since.

Yet since 1999, I haven't been able to find a church that I feel really "at home" in. I'm, more or less these days, a "conservative" (evangelical) christian but almost all protestant-evangelical churches "teach" the heresies of (both) premillennialism and the "pre-trib rapture" (premillennial dispensationalism).

I thank God that I exited the branch of Christianity that promotes these false doctrines and atrocities.

I'm still trying to find "my place" among believers....

Thanks again,

rick

\o/

19

Early Christology question

by M.J. in

my knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the nt.

could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding christ's nature, the worship of christ, etc.?

leolaia in another post mentioned how there were three principle factions around the question of salvation.

rick_here

M.J.,

I should have said that this is a "hypothesis" (of mine); that God can be identified as EL, the Most High God, and His Son, (among other divine sons) is Yahweh...Jesus. In any event, this probably wouldn't reflect Margaret Barker's view exactly.

Here's an article from Bryan T. Huie that has some quotes from Margaret Barker and some Early (Apologist) Fathers, Ignatius and Justin:

Who Is Jesus Christ?

Bryan Huie's articles are rather long but jam-packed with information! (Btw, I don't go along with 'everything' he says).

So, M.J., I know you didn't ask for more input. Yet this article -- as well as Huie's other articles on "The Godhead" -- just have so much in them that I like to pass them on....

rick

\o/

23

Why were apocalyptic books included in the NT canon?

by logansrun in

jw
friends

all right folks -- especially you scholarly ones -- let me state a question i've been having: .

from my understanding of christian history the proto-catholic church selected the books to be included in the nt canon after the first century was concluded (nt canon finalized in mid 2nd century?).

included in this canon were books which include some apocalyptic sayings of jesus (especially in mark) that obviously were not fulfilled, such as mark 9:1 "truly i say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of god has come with power.

rick_here

Luke 22 (RSV):
66. When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes; and they led him away to their council, and they said,
67. "If you are the Christ, tell us." But he said to them, "If I tell you, you will not believe;
68. and if I ask you, you will not answer.
69. But FROM NOW ON the Son of man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God."
70. And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
71. And they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips."

(caps, underline, italics, bold, mine)....

rick
\o/

33

New discovery of a lost gospel

by Leolaia in

the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

rick_here

The texts cited regarding Christians as being of a "third (race)" seem to me as a kind of "dispensationalist view" of we, as a people. First, were the Jews, the Chosen People. This obviously separated them from all other peoples (the Gentiles).

In the Preaching of Peter the "third race" do come across as being a new generation of people. But this is from a (purely) human perspective, along dispensational (or "covenant" lines)....

As such, this doesn't address the "births from heaven" theme that the apocalyptic literature points to: the arrival of evil (spirits) into the world and of the "descent of Son of Man and his seed."

Two differing topics, here, imo.

\o/

19

Early Christology question

by M.J. in

my knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the nt.

could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding christ's nature, the worship of christ, etc.?

leolaia in another post mentioned how there were three principle factions around the question of salvation.

rick_here

M.J. posted:

My knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early Church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the NT. Could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding Christ's nature, the worship of Christ, etc.?

As Narkissos has pointed out, post-first century "conflicts" regarding Christology are wide and varied, depending on what (exact) time frame is in question. In other words, the differences of opinion in Christology ("who Jesus Christ was") in the early centuries evolved along lines of, and in the context of, current debates of those specific times.

Did each of these also correspond with a differing view of Christ? .... I've read about the Gnostic view and I've also read vague references to an early "Angel-Christology" which the first Chapter of Hebrews may have been written to refute.

"The Gnostics", per se, as non-proto-orthodox groups, weren't really identified as such till the mid to late second century. "They" weren't any certain sect, but represented a multitude of belief-sytems that were, then, currently being defined as 'not having orthodoxy' (orthodox simply means, "having the correct opinion of"). "(Christian) orthodoxy" was still developing in the second century and probably didn't have any patent or succint definitions till after the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD. We look back to these developments in hindsight and often fail to see their true historical significances.

Ironically, I've found in the writings of "The Apologists" (the earliest of the Early Fathers of the second century) certain themes that seem to go-along-with what Margaret Barker has observed. Keeping in mind that, in the second century, we are speaking of proto-orthodoxy (in its formative stages).

As to "Angel-Christology"... in their writings these earliest Apologists/Fathers seem to fully support ideas that see Jesus Christ as (both) the (OT) Angel of Yahweh and of Christ actually being Yahweh Himelf (incarnated)

However, a clear distinction is made here.
Yahweh (or Jehovah) was one of the "sons of God" (of the Father-God: EL, or El-Elyon). Yahweh, or Jehovah, is the incarnate Jesus, the deity who was appointed over Israel by His Father: EL.

But it seems that from what I've read, the worship of Christ among early Christians was pretty consistent.

The earliest Christians, who were Jewish, believed in One God (EL, "the father of the gods and of humanity") and in One Lord (Jesus Christ) (Yahweh, His Son, sent to the people of Israel).

rick

\o/

19

Early Christology question

by M.J. in

my knowledge about this is limited to some quotes of what various early church fathers taught and what they said about "heresies", in addition to the nt.

could some of the more knowledgeable folks on this board give their input as to what schools of thought were out there in the 1st century regarding christ's nature, the worship of christ, etc.?

leolaia in another post mentioned how there were three principle factions around the question of salvation.

rick_here

(From the back cover of The Great Angel: A Study in Israel's Second God by Margaret Barker, (Westminster, John Knox Press, 1992):

What did "Son of God," "Messiah," and "Lord" mean to the first Christians when they used these words to describe their beliefs about Jesus? In this groundbreaking, clearly written book, Margaret Barker goes against protocol and treats these three titles collectively. She explores the possibility that in the expectations and traditions of first-century Palestine they belonged together, and that the first Christians fit Jesus' identity into an existing pattern of belief. Barker claims that pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic and that the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in a pre-Christian Palestinian belief about the angels - a belief derived from the ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God. Yahweh was a Son of God, manifested on earth in human form as an angel or in the Davidic King. Jesus was a manifestation of Yahweh, acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord....Barker supports her thoughtful investigation with canonical and deutero-canonical works and literature from Qumran and rabbinic sources. Her stimulating book will shed new light on the origins of Christianity and is an excellent source for Old and New Testament scholars and anyone interested in Jesus as a person.

I'm about half-way thru Barker's book and am finding so much information that it's a bit hard to digest! Not in the sense of it being, in any sense, "unpalatable" (or radical)... it's the exact opposite; entirely "enlightening" (for lack of vocabulary).

33

New discovery of a lost gospel

by Leolaia in

the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

rick_here

Narkissos,

Looking at the context of 1 Enoch 39 (again) I think you are probably right; it does seem to refer to the same "fall of the angels" earlier in the book.
Yet, there also appears to be something significant regarding "births" (and/or "two families") in both biblical and non-canonical literature.

Sorry if I got a bit side-tracked.

;)

33

New discovery of a lost gospel

by Leolaia in

the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

rick_here

1 Enoch 39
1. And it shall come to pass in those days that elect and holy children will descend from the
2. high heaven, and their seed will become one with the children of men.

The "second spiritual birth"... initiated by Jesus (the Son of Man) who descended from heaven.

33

New discovery of a lost gospel

by Leolaia in

the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

rick_here

Hello Narkissos! (and I have to go (for now) after this post),

1 Enoch 39:1f most probably refers (again) to the union of the heavenly Watchers with women... so "?"

Good question; I've asked that and much more about the text in question. This led me to an 'in-depth study' (to the best of my ability) of Genesis 6:4 and of the Nephilim.

To abbreviate my findings; I see 1 Enoch and Ge. 6 (Nephilim) as a kind of apocalyptic description of (what we normally refer to as) "The Fall of Man." However, this wouldn't be the "original Fall" (of Adam & Eve).

It's the later Ante-Deluvian (before the flood) Fall, imo, described in apocalyptic phraseology or terms. Put another way, the "race" of the fallen ones (lit., nephilim) began at this time.

Though there were a certian people specifically identified as "Nephilim" I do not see them as some kind of mysterious "giants" (which is due to an erroneous translation in the LXX). Nor do I see them as a strange "Bible Science-Fiction-Giants" (or the as the object of jokes).

Essentially, being "born of (or by) a spirit" or having a spiritual-birth and, therefore, being "in" a spiritual-family is what I'm driving at. I believe the Bible (and extra-canonical literature as well) points to "people being in One of the Two Families" by virue of their spiritual birthright.

1 Enoch 15 (Charles translation)
1. And He answered and said to me, and I heard His voice: 'Fear not, Enoch, thou righteous man and scribe of righteousness: approach hither and hear my voice.
2. And go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: "You should intercede" for men, and not men for you:
3. Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons?
4. And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish.
5. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. 6. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world.

7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

8. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling.
9. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men, and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called.

10. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling.
11. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from THEM.

divisions, emphases, & caps, mine

\o/

I have to go for now....

33

New discovery of a lost gospel

by Leolaia in

the lost gospel of judas, thought to be the same gospel mentioned by irenaeus (cf.

adversus haereses 1.31.1), is currently being prepared for publication.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004/07/exciting-news-about-coptic-gospel-of.html.

rick_here

Midget-Sasquatch,

Most Gnostics, however, took another line, claiming that Christ was a divine emissary from above, totally spirit, and that he entered the man Jesus temporarily in order to convey the knowledge that can liberate sparks from their material imprisonment. For these Gnostics, Jesus himself was in fact a human, even though some thought that he was not made like the rest if us, so that he could receive the divine emissary; some, for example, thought that he had a "soul-body: rather than a "flesh-body".

and going back to Narkissos,

[in Nag Hammadi]...Allogenes (in contrast to Autogenes) does not seem to be the heavenly Revealer, rather a disciple who gradually came to gnôsis through a series of trials and then teaches another.

In the extant GJudas it is difficult to tell whether Allogenes or someone else is (temporarily?) defeated and unable to enslave (the archontes?). But this could suit a disciple character too.

Leaving aside specific "gnostic doctrines" about Christ; let's consider Christology in general. There is support for the "humanity" of Jesus (in both the canonical and (some) gnostic writings). What the 'orthodox' (NT) texts don't really ever elaborate on -- or explore -- is Jesus (own) self-knowledge of who he was.

It's somewhat obliquely hinted at in the canon, but always after the fact. "Don't you know I must be about my Father's business?" (the earliest e.g.). At this point Jesus had come to some definate awareness of who he "was" to his personal identity. "He [Jesus] learned obedience through what he suffered", (in Hebrews somewhere, paraphrased). This text points to Jesus' adult life and undoubtedly, and invetivably, to his Passion.

We Christians, and JW's, and ex-JW's, aren't all that accustomed to seeing Jesus as a "disciple of God." We assume that there must have been something different inside Jesus that made him radically different than we are, humanly speaking. And while this is certainly so (!); each of us has to go thru our own "Allogenes" stage... the path of self-knowldege.

In this sense of being a "student under God's instruction" (a human being, disciple); I find no apparent conflict in seeing Jesus as "an Allogenes figure." Even the Son of God had to find out who he was....

\o/

rick_here

Posts by rick_here