Posts by glenster

For the possibility of the basic God concept, I recommend "How to Think About
God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan" by Mortimer J. Adler. For Abrahamic
faith, progressive/reform.

54

Matthew 27:52-53 WTF!?!?!?!

by Cagefighter in

dead people raided jerusalem during the cruxifiction?

how have i never heard this before?

why do i suspect the nwt completely leaves this event out?.

PS: the theory I suggested would have the centurian speak on Friday. This
could include seeing the two earthquakes of Matthew as figuratively (both?)
indicating the importance of Jesus crucifed and rising as world shaking events
similar to the two earthquakes that happen with the establishment of the new
covenant on Mt. Golgotha and the Law on Mt.Sinai.

There's understandable caution about how to take the passage. The kind I
suggested has created a flap with supporters of a conservative version, such as
that the recently departed (so recognized by some in town) literally rose then
died later like Lazarus. They contest the suggestion by an author, Licona, to
possibly use a figurative interpretation of the passage and criticize that it's
based on extra-Biblical texts. One of the web pages:
http://blog.godreports.com/2011/11/book-about-resurrection-sparks-inerrancy-debate/

10

FI-nally: "The In-Laws," 1979, Peter Falk, Alan Arkin

by glenster in

feature: ovaltine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_suywoociy.

missing in the recent peter falk tribute:.

glenster

Off topic, but so as not to start another thread:

"Comedians in cars getting coffee"--
Jerry Seinfeld interviews comedians--check related links for others.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBA6DE42DF9CB7310&feature=plcp

Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czusJ8YLCg

Michael Richards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wriy3ICfF9U

Ricky Gervais
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFrrNTVTySQ

10

FI-nally: "The In-Laws," 1979, Peter Falk, Alan Arkin

by glenster in

feature: ovaltine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_suywoociy.

missing in the recent peter falk tribute:.

glenster

Columbo:

It's All in the Game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3n6LwJ0vFM

Self Portrait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKNnHauO-7g

54

Matthew 27:52-53 WTF!?!?!?!

by Cagefighter in

dead people raided jerusalem during the cruxifiction?

how have i never heard this before?

why do i suspect the nwt completely leaves this event out?.

glenster

"The raising of the dead still takes place during the crucifixion even with the
gloss."

The timing required by the Greek wasn't clear to me from the English. I've
looked at various interpretations, including what various things of context re-
quire the passage not be about. One sympathetic interpretation I found was the
idea that hopeful followers saw it that way, not literally, in that they spoke of
Jesus as a guarantee of the time when the messiah would bring related resurrec-
tions (sort of "mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the resurrec-
tions"). They became convinced that Jesus was the messiah, they'd pinned this
upcoming event to the arrival of the messiah, so they spoke of being convinced
it was a reality, too--it appeared to them this way.

PS about Dawkins and the OT: there's orthodox, conservative, liberal, progres-
sive, and reform faith regard of the OT--not just the problems of fundamentalist
stances or no faith. Those are considered by the others and don't require athe-
ism. I'm working on an article from a progressive/reform outlook that includes
coverage of those OT concerns, too. I won't recommend every stance used by each
of them, but there are various books and web sites by people of faith about it
including various books refuting the stances Dawkins uses. He's entitled to his in-
terpretations and choice to be atheist, but it's not hard to counter that he
forces his case as requiring it.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.voxday.net%2Fmart%2FTIA_free.pdf&ei=59CGULqiMojo8QTApIFo&usg=AFQjCNGTY8OH7Q3sVGzgdHV7Cj6MMUhimQ&sig2=A63fsNq7aBFgfxCdpGTx-A
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2007/06/stanley_fish_sm.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F

54

Matthew 27:52-53 WTF!?!?!?!

by Cagefighter in

dead people raided jerusalem during the cruxifiction?

how have i never heard this before?

why do i suspect the nwt completely leaves this event out?.

glenster

Gloss: I've read that, but it works if the idea was the tombs split open and
the next phrases explain how that's important later--the bodies were like dry
bones, not resurrected and going into the city, till Jesus was resurrected.

Some similar notes from a web page by glenn miller (not the band leader)
4/7/97:
http://christianthinktank.com/oddrise.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5TZWh11fY

In Jewish thought of the day (i.e. the rabbinical strains that later became
Mishnaic Judiasm) the bodily resurrection of OT Jewish saints would occur when
the messiah came. They expected a bodily resurrection like that in the passage
to occur at the revealing of the messiah. One rabbi was recorded as saying this:

"R. Jeremiah commanded, 'When you bury me, put shoes on my feet, and give me a
staff in my hand, and lay me on one side; that when Messias comes I may be
ready." (cited in Lightfoot, Commentary of the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica, in.loc.)

...no longer is access to God 'covered with a veil' and no longer are His
saints covered with 'the veil of death'...

...Ezek 37 with its creative description of the enlivening of the dry bones
influenced Jewish imagination in picturing the resurrection of the dead. The
first part of Ezek 37:12-13, "I will open your tombs," probably shaped the third
line of the quatrain of Matt 27:51b-52b, "And the tombs were opened." But the
Ezek passage continues: "And I will bring you up out of your tombs, and I will
lead you into the land of Israel. Then you shall know that I am the Lord." Even
as elsewhere Matt enhances the scriptural background and flavoring of material
taken from Mark, so here scripturally he goes beyond the quatrain by offering in
27:53 the fulfillment of the rest of the Ezek passage: "And having come out from
the tombs,...they entered into the holy city [of Jerusalem]."

Another biblical passage may have shaped Matt's addition, especially the last
clause "and they were made visible to many," i.e., Isa 26:19 (LXX): "Those in
the tombs shall be raised, and those in the land [or on the earth] shall re-
joice." Thus in what he has added to Mark (both the quatrain taken over from
popular tradition and his own commentary on it), Matt has developed the theolog-
ical insight. In apocalyptic language and imagery borrowed from Scripture he
teaches that the death of Jesus and his resurrection ("raising") marked the be-
ginning of the last times and of God's judgment...[DM:1140]

10

FI-nally: "The In-Laws," 1979, Peter Falk, Alan Arkin

by glenster in

feature: ovaltine.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_suywoociy.

missing in the recent peter falk tribute:.

glenster

Feature: Ovaltine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_SuywOociY

Missing in the recent Peter Falk tribute:

"The In-Laws," 1979, Peter Falk, Alan Arkin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrqMP7lpdjc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_In-Laws_%281979_film%29

Playing the requests, "Tune In Tomorrow," 1990
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WJAwNiA7_M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tune_In_Tomorrow

22

I've been challenged by a JW apologist and need some answers please.

by I_love_Jeff in

the apologists states: "give at least one example in the bible where the word prototokos (firstborn) does not carry the meaning of "a beginning of existence.

or present any occurrence of the genitive phrase "firstborn of ..." which does not include the subject as part of the group.".

hi aggressive questions present the logical fallacy of false dilemma.

glenster

The mainstream identity of Jesus has a much better case than the GB version for
being what was intended (see Larry Hurtado's case regarding prayer and worship in
1st century Jewish monotheism, the indication of early related history, etc.)
Several pages of my GTJ Brooklyn article compares the GB mischaracterization of
the mainstream view with the mainstream view. Here's what I have on that for the
word "firstborn":
http://glenster1.webs.com/gtjbrooklyn8.htm

Firstborn
http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm

The brochure asks if Jesus was part of the Godhead in his pre-human existence
and answers itself ("Don't interrupt, I'm having a rhetorical conversation"--
"The Producers," 1968): "No, for the Bible plainly states that in his prehuman
existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings
created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their crea-
tion." "Jesus, in his prehuman existence, was "the first-born of all creation."
(Colossians 1:15, NJB)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_%281968_film%29

Prototokos: Firstborn (Col.1:15) means the "most important first offspring" or
just figuratively "most important." Joseph called Ephraim his firstborn, etc.
(Gen.41:51,52), though Ephriam wasn't his first son (also see Jer.31:9; Col.1:
15-18; Rom.8:29; Heb.12:23; Rev.1:5). Thanks to Vine's Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words.
http://www2.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0001056
http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/CONGRK441.htm#S4416

Another example of firstborn meaning most important, not the numerical first
one of a sequence, is regarding King David, who wasn't Jesse’s first child or
the first king of Israel but God called him his "firstborn" of the kings of the
Earth at Psalms 89:27: "I also shall make him My firstborn, The highest of the
kings of the earth." He would be the heir to the status of "most important" of
a firstborn.

The idea of a firstborn son being the first of importance led to a figurative
use in which a firstborn was just the most important--that they had importance
as if they came before the other one(s). (Also see John 1:3: Jesus is before
all things.)

At Job 18:13, the "firstborn of death" isn't the first disease created but the
most important in its effects.

The context of Col.1:15 says a lot without me editorializing:

Firstborn: "He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all
creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible
and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities--
all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and
in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is
the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-
eminent. For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, and through
him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making
peace by the blood of his cross." (Col.1:15-20, NASB)

According to Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Jesus being
the "image" of the invisible God (see the section below on "holy spirit" regard-
ing the definition of "spirit" as the invisible being of someone) indicates Je-
sus is an exact representation of God's invisible spirit--the mainstream idea of
Jesus, not merely someone with a resemblance to God in some regards as with a
creation such as an alleged god, which could only perfectly abide by what he was
told to do. This is connected to the coverage of John 1:1 below.

"All things were created through him and for him" attributes to Jesus what God
claims about creating all things for Himself at Is.48:11-14:

"For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act;
For how can My name be profaned?
And My glory I will not give to another.
Deliverance Promised
Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens."

Both views of Jesus have him born to Mary but don't see "firstborn" as refer-
ring to that. Both views see Jesus as existing before that, and both take
"firstborn" figuratively. The mainstream view emphasizes that a being born of
another is the same quality being (God) and the JWs leaders' view emphasizes
that it's a separate being (archangel Michael).

The JWs leaders' brochure takes "born" figuratively to mean "created." If it
were intended to express that clearly, "first created" would be "proto-tiktos."
The rest of the Colossians passage has Jesus before all things which were
created through him, too, which makes it a bad choice for an attempt at a JWs
leaders' proof verse: "for in him all things were created, in heaven and on
earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or
authorities--all things were created through him and for him." That's not how
to identify Jesus as archangel Michael.

The JWs leaders' NWT adds "other" (p.6b) with the forced point that context
requires it (the JWs leaders' concerns of p.7, or described in the section be-
low on Prov.8:22-31, applied to translation), and the JWs leaders' interpreta-
tion of it, to create a JWs leaders' impression that all "other" things were
created through a created Jesus.

Considering the mainstream view that ensued, the JWs leaders' stance is weak
in having God leave such an important distinction up to people imagining an ex-
tra word, and the JWs leaders' required interpretation of it, when they didn't,
there's no reason, JWs leaders' forced points cleared from the deliberation,
they had to, and God could have had it written to make sure they did (pp.9,10).

What was written to make the distinction clear is at John 1:3: "All things
were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Making
the JWs leaders' stance clear would be easy: having it written that all things
"except for archangel Michael" were created through him, archangel Michael, and
that without him "only one thing was created: him." Various lines in Isaiah
would would have said that "just one god" instead of "no god" was with God in
creation, too. They were written the mainstream way, though.

If you imagine God to have meant the JWs leaders' view to be clear, He would
have phrased it differently in more ways than by adding "other" because God
could be said to have created everything "other" than Himself. A simple consis-
tent reference to archangel Michael without aka Jesus, or "Jesus is archangel
Michael" and leaving out all the God and God-like things, would do it but it
wasn't written that way.