again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Vidqun:
Jesus referred to himself as "Son of man" approximately 60 times
Well, he might have. We have no idea what Jesus said. All we have is stories written decades after his death. But even then, he had the book of Daniel available to him, so claiming to be the 'son of man' (completely contorting the original purpose of the phrase) would be entirely unremarkable. See also Psalm 146:3.
And Ezekiel is called the 'son of man' more than 90 times, if we're just playing by the numbers. 🙄
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
Just to clarify, the overall theme of Daniel was a (hoped for) Maccabean victory over Syria, which does imply a Maccabean king. But the supernatural imagery in Daniel 7:13 is so vague that the author could have intended a subsequent permanent Davidic lineage ruling at some point. The passage is ultimately hyperbole representing independent rule from Jerusalem rather than being subject to other nations, so there's no point trying to take it literally.
(Note that Daniel 8:17 refers to the pseudonymous author of Daniel as "son of man", which could imply that the anonymous author of Daniel thought of himself as the potential king, though use of the phrase there is probably just coincidental.)
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
peacefulpete:
I'll add that no mention is made of David or Davidic messianism. Not all sects of Judaism shared that particular idea and it would appear the author had opportunity but did not include this concept.
It’s impossible to say for sure. The book of Daniel overall is intentionally cryptic. Davidic lineage was obviously a prominent belief, and the author of Daniel doesn’t specify any other lineage, though it’s possible that the author had some alternative in mind (and likely favouring the Maccabees). One ‘benefit’ of being less specific is it allows greater latitude for supposed ‘fulfilments’, which may or may not have also been intentional.
again this is large topic, some of which has been discussed elsewhere on this site.
the basic question i want to discuss is the identification of the 'someone like a son of man" in daniel 7. as we all know christians understood the figure to be the messiah (christ), so the question posed is did the author intend it to be a singular personage or a collective symbol of the holy of israel as jews typically read it?
or how about the unexpected idea that the "someone like a son of man" was the very same character as the "ancient of days" in another role?.
The Christian re-interpretation of ‘son of man’ is a corruption (which itself was likely present in various sects of Judaism in the first century) of the original intent, and the original word in Daniel 7:13 just means ‘a human’. Compare similar usage of ‘son of man’ throughout Ezekiel. As used in Daniel, it conveys (hyperbolically) that a new king in the line of David was expected to arise. The corruption of the term likely developed after expectations failed regarding the appearance of a human messiah in the years after Daniel was written in the 2nd century BCE.
See also Ezekiel revisited - Teaching Box 7B (review of Pure Worship book).
there is a new approach to ministry where the direction is to just talk to people and listen to what they want to talk about.
the new school for the midweek meeting is completely different and is all about the new approach .
even before the no reporting changes field service dropped right off.
Phizzy:
The Org. is determined to make it as easy as possible for J.W's to stay in the Org.
Have they tried… not teaching obvious lies? I’ll take my PR advice payment now thanks.🤣
for those who are still attending meetings, what is happening at your congregation regarding field service now that reporting of hours is no longer required?.
are the elders pushing for people to go out in service anyway?.
what is the response?.
Mikejw:
The GB did hire a PR company as they were so desperate to stop the bleeding.
That certainly seems to be the case. Is there more detail available?
please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.
the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.
as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.
Rivergang:
As an aide, giving the lie to the idea that Babylon is the “source of all false doctrine.”
Yes, with a ‘but’. The city of Babylon was further north than Sumer, and was prominent in a later period than Sumer. But both were in the Babylonia region, so a JW might think it’s a ‘gotcha’ that Sumer was ‘Babylonian’ in some sense. Except for the fact that various cultures around the planet predate the Sumerians by thousands of years (and the ‘Tower of Babel’ story is obviously another myth).
please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.
the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.
as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.
PioneerSchmioneer:
I think you quoted KOW out of context. At one point he also stated
Not you again. 🙄 I didn’t quote anyone out of context, nor did I say he said anything wrong. I provided additional information in response to his first comment in the thread, for which there was no prior context.
I believe he merely mentioned that the "original [Noachin] flood story" originated from the Gilgamesh narrative as found in Genesis in that specific reference you quote.
There’s that ‘taking out of context’ you mentioned. KOW’s comment I quoted was from a day before he said what you quoted him saying. You may now apologise.
please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.
the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.
as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.
nicolaou:
Some miss the point through a genuine misunderstanding, some through a wilful misdirection.
For those who believe the story is literally true, they will always come up with (usually, simply repeat) some trite explanation for why it was justified, and believing that the story is a historical event necessarily has also affected their ability to rationally consider information or broader implications that conflict with their world view.
For those who recognise it as a myth, the consideration of the moral implications is already obvious and a bit superfluous.
Your intended (or at least, optimal) audience would be somewhere in between. Questioning the validity of such stories. They would be less likely to comment, but would take in the point nonetheless. However, there are various factors about the forum that I won’t go into here that limits the proportion in that category.
please, please ignore all the scientific impossibilities here, that's not what this topic is about.. let's make the assumption as many christians do that the bible is historically accurate.
the noachian flood actually happened a little less than 4,500 years ago after which eight adults stepped off the ark to repopulate the planet.. that means that approximately 60 million lives had been snuffed out, a holocaust by anyone's estimation.
as if that isn't horrific enough just think about the babies, toddlers and young children god killed.. he drowned all of them, every single one.
slimboyfat:
I can assure you our pet cat Sanders is neither useful nor tasty. 🐈⬛
I’d like to think that you don’t actually know how tasty your cat is.
