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.
glenster
JoinedPosts by glenster
-
25
A spin off of the athiest thread
by trujw inhas anyone thought there is a god but he is not perfect.
maybe he is flawed not all knowing and looks at us the same as i look at ants?
people are either black or white.
-
-
glenster
-
54
Matthew 27:52-53 WTF!?!?!?!
by Cagefighter indead 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
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 infeature: 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=plcpCarl Reiner and Mel Brooks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czusJ8YLCgMichael Richards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wriy3ICfF9URicky Gervais
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFrrNTVTySQ -
10
FI-nally: "The In-Laws," 1979, Peter Falk, Alan Arkin
by glenster infeature: 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=u3n6LwJ0vFMSelf Portrait
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKNnHauO-7g -
54
Matthew 27:52-53 WTF!?!?!?!
by Cagefighter indead 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 indead 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=_n5TZWh11fYIn 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 infeature: 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_SuywOociYMissing 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%29Playing 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 inthe 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.htmFirstborn
http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htmThe 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%29Prototokos: 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#S4416Another 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. -
198
Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)
by Leolaia inthere has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.
in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.
he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.
-
-
glenster
That, but I also mean the instruction for people not to even say "Good morning"
to her because she was so mentally ill she was under the influence of wickedness
and her word wasn't reliable (similar to the recent UK Watch Tower controversy,
too), and making a public case of his own unquestionable virtue, seem to have the
same Rutherford touch shown later.Some significant highlights in Charles' divorce from Maria Frances Ackley Rus-
sell:- the marriage was an 18 year celibate marriage based on a mutual commitment
to writing the literature that Russell put out. She played a significant role
in the success of his business as a contributor and associate editor.- She quoted him as claiming to be adulterous, which he denied, and she didn't
pursue the charge.
http://www.sixscreensofthewatchtower.com/roseballtranscript.html- Charles said he disapproved of her becoming a supporter of women's rights,
overly-ambitious, and said she had Satanic mental illness to the degree that her
word wasn't reliable.1911: "And even outside of the Scriptural question, in human affairs, we
seen no way in which a woman's interests are endangered, because every woman
is either a sister of a man or the mother of a man or the daughter of a man.
Hence the two sexes are so intimately related that it is unnecessary, for in-
stance, that the whole family should go to the polls to vote, but the family
is represented by the man and thus all have share in whatever shall be done
in a city or town or country."If this were otherwise we could imagine a very unsatisfactory condition
indeed. It would imply that man had lost one of the very prerogatives which
is an element of manhood. On the other hand, it would imply a dereliction
on the part of the woman. The Apostle reminds us of a woman's sphere. And
any mother whose son does not respect her should keep very quiet. She has
that child during all the years of infancy and youth. And if in all those
years she does not command respect from that child, she is to blame."We believe that if women would get the proper focus on this matter there
would be an end to woman-suffrage. They would feel that they had a duty at
home. There are exceptions to every rule. But Christian parents have said
to us, If I had known the Truth sooner, I would have known how to be a better
father, a better mother; but I was not taught anything as to the responsi-
bilities upon me as a parent and what was meant by the proper training of a
child." "Watchtower Reprints," Jan.15, 1911, p.4749His lengthy defense of himself in the matter, which reads like one of his
Watch Tower articles meant to explain the reasonableness of seeing him as a
saint and any critics as slanderous enemies yet not let on a glimmer of why the
reader should think they had any reason to criticize (gee, I wonder how this
marriage broke up?), is at the next link:
http://www.biblestudents.com/htdbv5/r3808.htm- He wrote advising others that it would be improper to say things like "Good
morning" to her (a precursor to current JWs leaders' shunning rules).In a letter of July 9, 1896, Russell wrote: "To avoid misunderstanding, let me
say, under the circumstances it properly devolves upon you to make the advances
on the line of social amenities between us. It would be improper for me to take
the initiative in the matter of amenities such as, 'good morning,' 'good night,
'etc." (Exhibit 2, Superior Court)Reviewing the evidence, Justice Orlady ruled in Mrs. Russell's favor with
barely concealed anger:"The indignities offered to [Mrs. Russell] in treating her as a menial
in the presence of servants, intimating that she was of unsound mind and
that she was under the influence of wicked and designing persons, fully
warranted her withdrawal from his house, and fully justified her fear
that he intended to further humiliate her, by a threat to resort to legal
proceedings to test her sanity. There is not a syllable in the testimony
to justify his repeated aspersions on her character and her mental condi-
tion, nor does he intimate in any way that there was any difference be-
tween them other than that she did not agree with him in his views of
life and methods of conducting business. He says himself that she is a
woman of high intellectual qualities and perfect moral character. While
he denied in a general way that he attempted to belittle his wife as she
claimed, the general effect of his own testimony is a strong confirmation
of her allegations."In an analysis of the testimony it is quite difficult to understand
the view of the respondent in regard to his duty as a husband to his
wife. From his standpoint he doubtless felt that his rights as a husband
were radically different from the standard imposed upon him by the law,
and recognized by all the courts of this country.... His course of con-
duct toward his wife evidenced such insistent egotism and extravagant
self-praise that it would be manifest to the jury that his conduct toward
her was one of continual arrogant domination that would necessarily render
the life of any sensitive Christian woman a burden and make her conditions
intolerable." (Records of the Pennsylvania Superior Court, Vol. 37, page 348
[1908])
http://books.google.com/books?id=iTt2EphfPr8C&lpg=PA17&ots=4E-eSY-gM1&dq=in%20the%20presence%20of%20servants%2C%20intimating%20that%20she%20was%20of%20unsound%20mind%20and&pg=PA17#v=onepage&q=in%20the%20presence%20of%20servants,%20intimating%20that%20she%20was%20of%20unsound%20mind%20and&f=false
http://associate.com/library/The_Reading_Room/False_Teaching_n_Teachers_3/Questions_for_Jehovahs_Witness.shtml
http://www.preachtheword.com/sermon/cults01.shtml- She sought a limited divorce on the grounds of mental cruelty because it
brought support, and she was granted a divorce from bed and board--a legal sep-
aration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell#Marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_separation#A_mensa_et_thoroAlthough Charles' plea for sainthood, at a link above, somehow overlooked
this, the court decided Charles falsified events--the dispute over editorship
began after the couple had separated, Maria didn't seem mentally ill, etc.--and
decided in her favor over the divorce, including about her claims about his
cruelty, such as in using slander to have their friends shun her.Maria testified that though she was Secretary and Treasurer of the Watch Tower
Society, she was never allowed to look at the Society's financial records--only
Charles saw them. Unknown to her, his business involvements included the Bra-
zilian Turpetine Company, Pittsburgh Asphaltum Company, Silica Brick Company,
and Pittsburgh Kaolin Coke Company.In court, Charles denied knowing about the Salon company or that it was organ-
ized in the Watch Tower building and run by three girls there. All three--Alice
Land, Gabrielle Logan and Laura Whitehouse--testified that Russell himself ap-
proached them and asked if they would allow their names to be used to create a
company--Logan, Land & Whitehouse--for the purpose of purchasing goods at whole-
sale prices from manufacturers for an association called the Solon Company or
association, and Mr. Russell was their representative.Charles then told the court he remembered suggesting the idea to the ladies
and that Mr.John G. Koehne, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. Clayton J. Woodworth, of
Scranton, Pa., were the two principals who transacted the business. (Clayton
shows up a lot in JWs history and "..."GTA Brooklyn.") (Thanks to Farkel for
the research at the next link.)
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/77218/1/Russell-the-ManThe article at the next link explains a bit about most of the Watch Tower
money going into the United States Investment Co. and the United Cemeteries Cor-
poration, a couple of dummy corporations Russell ran, while Russell claimed to
be unable to pay his ex-wife $1,200 a year.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/scandals/52873/1/The-secret-cor
porationsThe web site at the next link is helpful if you'd like to try to convert the
cash amounts given in the articles listed above into the values they have today.
http://www.ex.ac.uk/~RDavies/arian/current/howmuch.htmlAccording to one calculator found there, "measuringworth.com.," $1,200 in 1909
is worth $27,432 in 2006 U.S. dollars. The overall income of Russell's organi-
zations was in the millions in 1909, according to the same articles. -
198
Rutherford's smear campaign (a must read)
by Leolaia inthere has been some interest recently about the moyle case, and how it may have set a precident in what became the society's disfellowshipping policy.
in july 1939, the chief legal counsel of the watchtower bible & tract society, olin r. moyle, resigned from his position in a protest over conditions at bethel and rutherford's mistreatment of workers.
he did not want to continue living under those conditions and he felt he could effect positive change for his brothers by taking such a stand.
-
-
glenster
Sorry this PS is added a bit late, but regarding Russell's disfellowshiping,
Rutherford-style, of Maria (see earlier post suggesting it's a precursor to all
this): wouldn't Russell by that stage in his life have taken counsel from Ruther-
ford on how to handle his divorce?