Posts by Jeffro

349

Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Godlyman in

if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.

estephan.

Jeffro

Above:

2. Such decrees were generally made around the time of a king’s accession, in this case Nisan of 539 BCE, allowing 6 months for the 4-month journey.

Obviously an inadvertent typo, that should say Nisan of 538 BCE.

349

Who really is the Faithful and Discreet Slave?

by Godlyman in

if anyone were to come up to you claiming that they are the faithful and discreet slave, how would you go about proving them to be false, based upon scripture?.

estephan.

Jeffro

‘scholar’:

Nope The following factors mitigate against the Return of the Exiles in 538 BCE;
1. Chronology of Darius the Mede
2.. Timing of the Decree ?
3. Proclamation of the Decree throughout Empire
4. Preparations by the Exiles prior to their Journey
5. Return trip home- route and time of Journey?
6. Resettlement home in their cities ?
7.. Timing of Altar Inauguration - Cyrus. 1st to 2nd year?
8. Calendrical reckoning used by Ezra?

Just for completeness… 😂

1. There was no ‘Darius the Mede’ per se but the character can be identified with the general who governed in Babylon until Cyrus’ arrival a few weeks after capturing the city. His tenure as ‘king’ (actually governor) would therefore be a period during October of 539 BCE, which has no bearing on the Jews’ return to Judea in 538 BCE. (As he was not actually a king, he has no accession period.)

2. Such decrees were generally made around the time of a king’s accession, in this case Nisan of 539 BCE, allowing 6 months for the 4-month journey. (There wasn’t actually a special decree just for the Jews but actually a more general policy of allowing conquered people to practise their native religious beliefs in order to help quell civil unrest among the conquered people.)

3. Not all of the Jews returned to Jerusalem after the initial ‘decree’, (and many never left Babylon at all) so it was not necessary for the ‘decree’ to have reached everywhere in the empire for the initial contingent to make the journey.

4. Not all of the Jews returned, and those who wanted to could reasonably make preparations within two months allowing a full 4 months for the 4-month journey. Knowledge of Cyrus’ reputation may also have allowed people to anticipate the return prior to the official ‘decree’ allowing additional time to prepare, though this is not essential.

5. It is not necessary to speculate about the specific route of the journey. Ezra provides 4 months as the duration of the journey from Babylon to Jerusalem.

6. Because not all of the Jews returned, it is not necessary that all Jewish cities were repopulated at that time, so it is not necessary to speculate about the details. They were in their cities by October 538 BCE, giving ample time to resettle before gathering in Jerusalem the following year.

7. Iyyar (May) 537 BCE, during Cyrus’ 2nd regnal year.

8. As with other post-exilic Jewish writings in the Persian period generally, Ezra used Nisan/accession dating.

Thus, any chronology for the Return must fully account for these factors and shows that to cram all of these in one year - 538 BCE is impossible but the following year- 537 BCE makes the impossible now possible and highly probable.

Every ‘element’ has been accounted for sufficiently to show that the Jews who returned to Judea arrived by Tishri (October) 538 BCE, with temple work commencing May 537 BCE. (The claim about ‘cramming everything into 538 BCE’ is also demonstrated to be a lie.)

What really is UN doing with religions?

by Kosonen in

jw
friends

occult un forces seek to hijack religion for globalism.

https://thenewamerican.com/occult-un-forces-seek-to-hijack-religion-for-globalism/it does not look like religions dominate un but the other way around.

journalist alex newman gives a totally different picture about the real state of affairs.

Jeffro

Disillusioned JW:

I ceased believing the WT teaching that the League of Nations became the United Nations.

The JW doctrine about the League of Nations is, of course, nuts. For a start, they believe (officially though most JWs probably couldn’t explain it) that Daniel’s ‘1290 days’ began with a suggestion in January 1919 of forming the League of Nations. Except it wasn’t actually founded until 1920. 🤦‍♂️

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

For Disillusioned JW… earlier I said:

It’s all a pitiful argument from ignorance no different to thinking lightning must be from the gods. As such, it is basically the ‘god of the gaps’ argument.

I didn’t mean to imply that this was in response to the information you provided. I meant that the superstitions of Sea Breeze about souls are not supported by the information you provided, and belief in souls remains an argument from ignorance. Sorry if there was any confusion.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Fisherman:

Many of these claims are demonstratably false

😂 most of your list are duplicates and none are demonstrably false.

You have not demonstrated that souls exist or that it is even possible

Your position remains an argument from ignorance, and that ignores any potential alternatives

And it is in fact the case that the gospels are not widely agreed to be historical by scholars, with only Jesus’ baptism and execution have broad agreement.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

I’m sure fisherman will be along any moment to provide evidence of souls, the specific mechanism for how they interact with bodies and how he ruled out any other potential alternatives. 😂

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Disillusioned JW:

I am especially fascinated by the portion of the Newsweek article which the following.
'"The most interesting aspect of this is [the patient] starts to have full memories of everything they have done and all their thoughts and intentions toward other people throughout their entire life," he said

Firstly, Newsweek is not a science journal. Aside from that, a person having an impression that they ‘have full memories of everything they have done’ is obviously arbitrary and subjective, since it may simply seem that way, and they obviously wouldn’t remember what they don’t remember. What seems like a significant flood of memories could simply be interpreted as ‘everything’. At most, this would be limited to events in long term memory to the exclusion of most of a person’s experiences of mundane routine in between significant experiences (though ‘significant’ in this sense is not the same as or limited to ‘significant events’ as one might mark on a calendar). It also could not be concluded that all of the memories would be accurate. Human memory isn’t like videotape or computer memory. I think the woo peddlers would also love misrepresenting the intended meaning of statements such as “gives access to dimensions of reality they otherwise did not have access to”. It would therefore be best not to read too much into such sensationalised phrasing.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Disillusioned JW:

the other instead considers that consciousness is separate from the brain and can influence brain activity independently of the brain

Of course, honest readers would be careful to note that the source doesn’t say ‘independent of any aspect of the physical body’. It could refer to distinctions between the cerebrum and the cerebellum or elsewhere in the nervous system. None of this lends any actual support to the superstitious notion of ‘souls’. But I suspect a good old bait-and-switch on the breeze. 😂

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

None of it supports Sea Breeze’s claims about souls. None of it rules out entirely physical processes that aren’t well understood. None of it rules out any other potential real or imagined alternative to ‘souls’. None of it provides any indication of what a ‘soul’ is or any mechanism for how it would interact with the body.

It’s all a pitiful argument from ignorance no different to thinking lightning must be from the gods. As such, it is basically the ‘god of the gaps’ argument.

98

Who raised Jesus from the dead?

by Blotty in

i have seen arguments surrounding jesus' resurrection being proof of "the trinity" - now while in some cases it's a good argument the evidence for it remains very weak.

(bible quotes are from the nwt but other bibles are referenced, use whichever you please) this following version of it is a good example.. "the bible indicates that all [persons] of the trinity was involved in jesus’ resurrection.

galatians[1:1] says that the father raised jesus from the dead.

Jeffro

Sea Breeze:

No circles. I've been on point consistently. Why is it so hard for you to just admit that these facts just don't fit in a materialist naturalistic paradigmn?

Why would I ‘admit’ any such thing? I have a basic knowledge of neurotransmitters and brain function at a layman level. I have no training in neurology. Why would I presume that just because I do not have an explanation for some medical conditions (though your examples are anecdotal) that it must mean it is unexplainable in the absence of supernatural fantasies?! Your perspective is bizarre.

You are yet to provide any demonstration of the existence of souls, any mechanism for how they interact with the body, or how you ruled out any other potential (natural or supernatural) explanations.