our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
Yes, I did ask first. I think everyone here should demand what I am demanding of you, conclusions which are logical, based on a logic methodology, validated by independent and disinterested parties.
I'm a big believer in the scientific and critical methods.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
Go ahead. Don't weasel out. I can do it. I'm pretty sure you know I can. You first. It shouldn't be hard or distasteful to repeat the process that has led to your current convictions. Surely they are all based on validated conclusions.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
Saintbertholdt,
Okay, if you say the Gospel of Thomas seems to be earlier and was probably Q, simply use the scientific method to prove that, right here and now.
The scientific method is the model used in Biblical criticism by philologists to demonstrate textual transmission. I am sure you know how to do this because I doubt you would be making any such claims here without having validated your views without due process.
Make sure you include the data of those who validate your conclusions as well.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
None of the gospels are historical records like the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Fundamentalist Christians teach. Each is a catechesis built upon the Gospel message that was being preached by the Christians. Regardless of what you may have learned from the Watchtower, the Gospels don't agree becuase simply they are not supposed to.
The first account and the simplest is the Petrine Gospel. Composed by Mark, a non-apostle, because of its Petrine source the composition became the basis for Luke and the finalized version of Matthew. Mark is the primitive account, written simply to impress the Christian view that the Passion of Christ was a victory and not a defeat.
The Matthean account is based on a sayings gospel (tradition holds that the oracles are those spoken of by Papias and may even be the theorized Q), and is a catechesis for Jewish Christians. It is designed not in chronilogical order like Mark, but in in order of five lessons to impress upon Jews that Jesus is the Messiah that Israel has been waiting for. The five sections are meant to copy the five Books of Moses. This gospel relies heavily on midrash, a Jewish form of exegesis to "prove" Jesus is he Messiah of Hebrew Scripture.
Luke's account is a Gentile catechesis, meant to impress the universality of Jesus. Written in the style of a lesson to a Gentile who has converted to Judaism, Luke also builds on Mark, employing a chronilogical and very precise order to show that Jesus is the Savior not only of the Jews but of the world.
None of are meant to be history. The Jehovah's Witness theology on this point is contrived on the Gnostic belief that a written text is a greater revelation from a divine source than anything. In reality Christianity is based on a person, Jesus of Nazareth, and the confession of the college of apostles. Each gospel is merely a different tool used to spread this witness in catechism form. Like all catechisms, each is adjusted for the culture and audience it is designed for. The synoptic gospels are catechisms.
The gospel of John is a late testimony, not so much catechesis as it is reflection and theology based on the gospel message. It uses none of the earlier sources because it's intention is exegesis, explain what Jesus means and why this meaning should convince an audience in the face of the growing threat from Gnosticism and other worldly philosophies.
One has to let go of the Watchtower views which demand the gospels are historical accounts, even those who become agnostic or atheist. It is the earmark of academic ignorance to claim that these books were even intended to be read like history.
Regardles if Jesus was real, regardless of what he spoke, one should not fan the flames of Watchtower/Fundamentalism ignorance by advancing the equally contrived in order to disprove straw man claims.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
Yes, I know the relationship between Egyptian and Coptic because I'm a philologist and linguist, and I have worked as a professional translator and interpreter for both the Catholic Church and an ecumenical Bible translation.
But Coptic is still what we call the language of Egypt during the first century. To not differentiate how Hellenism changed the language of the people of Egypt so much that, though related, it became something else by the time of the Second Temple is intellectually dishonest. Coptic was no longer Egyptian anymore than lemonade is still mere lemon juice.
And regardless of that, even a charlatan pretending to be the promised Messiah among my people Israel would not do so speaking the language of a Gentile. If there was such a historical Jesus of Nazareth, such a man would not have gathered such crowds who came to hear him teach if he spoke a language the common Jewish people did not understand. He could also not qualify to stand before the Sanhedrin without representation if he could not speak the language of the Jews.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
If I may add, Jews have a long history of holding onto Hebrew in one form or another.
In the first century it was Aramaic, which was a mishmash with ancient Hebrew.
Ashkenazi Jews currently utilize Yiddish which has its Hebrew mixed with Polish and German.
I'm a Sephardic Jew, and I speak Ladino, a mixture of Castillian Spanish and Arabic swirled around with Hebrew.
We always kept our Hebrew intact, despite the introduction of other languages as the ages passed. Today I also speak a form of American English dotted with Yiddish, Ladino, and Hebrew, so who knows what this will be called in the future if it gets gelled any further.
our former loving brothers and sisters have been instructed to think that, jesus likely spoke a form of hebrew and a form of aramaic.
(aid to bible understanding-103-105).
of course, there is no way to demonstrate the truth of that assertion or any other assertion about the languages that the common people of the land spoke.
After the Hellenization of Egypt under Alexander the Great, Egypt began speaking Coptic. So by the first century no one was speaking Egyptian in Egypt anymore.
However, it is not likely that Joseph would have relocated his family among Gentiles. It is likely that he moved his family to one of the bustling Jewish communities in Egypt, communities that wrote and taught Jewish Greek but spoke...Aramaic.
what kind of bible education did the governing body really give us?
how much important information about it did the watchtower really teach us?
how much are we missing out on if we are one of jehovahs witnesses?.
You are welcome.
While we all have different convictions and may think quite differently on lots of different subjects, I hope the one thing I can add is enough support in your corner to know at least one thing for sure: that leaving the confines of the dark and dusty Watchtower was the smartest thing any of us here have ever done.
it's been years since i've prayed and the last one i prayed to was the god known as jehovah.
just wondering.
There is so a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. His name is Shirley.
one of the things that gave me confidence in life was that i believed i had the almighty creator/god watching over me, directing me, guiding my every step, protecting me from harm, and answering my prayers.
i now know that is not the case anymore.
i finally stopped praying.
This might sound funny, but I have no idea what you folks are talking about.
Who on earth were you worshipping? I've never had an emotional high or felt comforted by "knowing God was there."
I never believed, ever, that G-d owed it to me to answer my prayers.
In fact, my relationship with G-d, especially now, is often very silent, dark, bumpy, and occasionally a struggle.
Sometimes there's what turns out to be the equivalent of an argument, with more question marks than acknowledging nods from both parties.
It's not that I don't feel some sort of something there, but I would never say that whatever it is that it puts my mind at ease. It's highly complex, as intellectually honest as it is transcendent of any logic. It is a sweetness that produces nausea, an understanding that leaves me guessing, and a cold, lonely darkness that inspires with hope.
It's like being in love with somebody. They are just as irritating and grinding on you as they are important to your heart.
Now I am not saying you need to worship my Deity or take up my religion or even believe in G-d. No, not at all.
But even when I was among Jehovah's Witnesses I never understood "God" like others seemed to. I still don't understand G-d on any level, and yet I have full grasp at the same time.
He chases me down yet I am always after him. Worshipping him is full of happiness and sorrow making complete sense and none at all. It is all that makes up life, it's confusion, it's satisfaction, it's emptiness, it's fulfillment.
Prayer is not even words sometimes. There is very little asking of G-d. There is a lot asked from G-d. I find myself here when he is not, and he finds he just missed me and will have to try again.
Being with G-d is good and bad, ugly and beautiful, just like life is, all of it. But if I ever said I didn't need G-d, I would not miss comfort or someone I felt was there obliged to help or grant my wishes like a genie. I don't know this in my experiences.
And I am not trying to be condescending. I really cannot relate. If that was all there was to G-d, I'd reject G-d too.
