Posts by jonathan dough

44

The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason in

1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

(ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

jonathan dough

JD,

The passages at Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:21-23 need to be decoupled.

Am I missing something here? Coupled or de-coupled, I don't see anything that says the end of the 70 years happened in 537. You agree, right?

52

Another Trinity Thread

by AwSnap in

can you clarify something for me please?

the jw's teach that most (to them, that means all) religions teach the trinity as being that god almighty, jesus, and the holy spirit are literally one, meaning the exact same 'person', none higher than the other, inseparable, the exact same thing.

they mainly use catholics and baptists, in my experience.

jonathan dough

I think I shall simply leave it as: "That is not what other religions teach. You lie. You are being mislead. NannynannyBooBOO."

What other religions are you talking about? This is rather mainstream Christian theology, Cahtolic and Protestant. Check the citations. There is a reason why the Society prohibited and then discourages higher education. They don't want you to get it.

44

The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason in

1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

(ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

jonathan dough

Since we're posting long pieces on this thread I might as well upload a section which proves the 70 years didn't in 537.

http://144000.110mb.com/607/i-4.html

H. The seventy years could not have ended when the exiles returned to Judah in 537 B.C.E. because there existed no king of Babylon to serve for two years between 537 B.C.E. and 539 B.C.E. after Persia began its reign in 539 B.C.E..

If there was no longer a king of Babylon once the reign of Persia began, how could the exiles serve him for two more years until they returned to their homeland? It would not be possible. Jehovah's Witnesses counter that Cyrus the king of Persia was the king of Babylon during those last two years between 539 B.C.E. and 537 B.C.E. so they were still captives serving a king of Babylon, Cyrus. They also claim that at first Cyrus did not alter the policy of the Babylonian Dynasty and therefore the nations continued to serve ‘the king of Babylon’ (thus dipping into the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory for convenience' sake), and that a contemporary clay inscription quotes Cyrus as referring to himself as king of Babylon. Their argument is reproduced here:

Until their release in 537 B.C.E, for the entire duration that the Jewish exiles were held captive in Babylon, it could rightly be said that they were serving the king of Babylon. This is expanded upon in paragraph 10 of an article entitled “The ‘Cup’ That All Nations Must Drink at God’s Hand” that appeared in the September 15, 1979 issue of The Watchtower, p. 24:“ It is true that he [Cyrus] conquered Gentile Babylon in 539 B.C.E., or about two years before the“ seventy years” of desolation of the land of Judah ran out. He proclaimed himself “king of Babylon” and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty of King Nebuchadnezzar.Thus the nations subjugated by Nebuchadnezzar continued to serve “the king of Babylon” 70 years.”

Are Jehovah’s Witnesses justified in making this claim? Yes, for the Bible tells us that after Cyrus II conquered Babylon, Darius the Mede became “king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans,” (Daniel 5:31, 9:1) and shortly thereafter, Cyrus established his kingship over all of Babylon, even being referred to as “Cyrus the king of Babylon” at Ezra 5:13. A contemporary inscription on a clay barrel confirms the accuracy of the Biblical account: “ All the inhabitants of Babylon as well as the entire country of Sumer and Akkad, princes and governors (included), bowed to him (Cyrus) and kissed his feet, jubilant that he (had received) the kingship . . . I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad.”—Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, James B. Pritchard, p.316.

Four questions present themselves: a) what year was Cyrus crowned king of Babylon, b) if he was crowned king of Babylon before the Jews returned to Judah why was he referred to as king of Persia during this time, and afterwards, c) if he was not crowned king of Babylon immediately in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell but at a later date, allowing for a gap in time, could the exiles legitimately be said to have served him during that gap which would shorten the seventy year time span, and d) even if Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon before the Jews returned, did he change the empire's policy and free the Jews so that they were not serving as captive slaves to Cyrus even before they began the long journey home?

First, while it is true that at Ezra 5:13 Cyrus was referred to as king of Babylon, it should be noted that it was not necessarily the Jews who referred to Cyrus as the king of Babylon, but the Jews' enemies who were attemping to thwart the rebuilding effort who paraphrased the Jewish response. Their enemies claimed the Jews referred to Cyrus as king of Babylon, which is heresay. The Jewish defense was restated in a letter from the Jews' enemies Tattenai, the governor beyond the river, to King Darius years after their return. The letter was written long after the exiles returned while the task of re-building was underway. It does not provide any evidence that Cyrus was king of Babylon from October 539 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E.. See generally chapter 5 of the book of Ezra.

Secondly, as a matter of fact Cyrus is referred to as king of Persia six times in verses preceding Ezra 5:13; four instances covering the time period before the exiles departed Babylon (Ezra 1;1, 2, 8), and twice in connection with the Jews’ attempts at rebuilding the temple at Ezra 4:3,5. Before the Jews returned, and even after they returned, they considered Cyrus king of Persia.

Third, Jehovah's Witnesses find support for their theory that the Jews served Cyrus the king of Babylon from 539 B.C.E. to 537 B.C.E. by reference to the above highlighted undated ‘contemporary’ cuneiform inscription on a clay barrel. As it turns out, this clay barrel is no ordinary clay barrel. It is considered to be the first charter of human rights and a very important historical artifact. In addition, it is the document, or charter, by which captives of the Babylonian Empire were freed, including the Jews. And that date, was the first day of spring 538 B.C.E., a mere 6 months or less after Babylon fell:

"The charter of Cyrus the Great, a baked-clay Aryan language (Old Persian) cuneiform cylinder, was discovered in 1878 in excavation of the site of Babylon. In it, Cyrus the Great described his human treatment of the inhabitants of Babylonia after its conquest by the Iranians.
The document has been hailed as the first charter of human rights, and in 1971 the United Nations was published translation of it in all the official U.N. languages. "May Ahura Mazda protect this land, this nation, from rancor, from foes, from falsehood, and from drought". Selected from the book "The Eternal Land".
This is a confirmation that the Charter of freedom of Humankind issued by Cyrus the Great on his coronation day in Babylon could be considered superior to the Human Rights Manifesto issued by the French revolutionaries in their first national assembly. The Human Rights Manifesto looks very interesting in its kind regarding the expressions and composition, but the Charter of Freedom issued twenty three centuries before that by the Iranian monarch sounds more spiritual.
Comparing the Human Rights Manifesto of the French National Assembly and the Charter approved by the United Nations with the Charter of Freedom of Cyrus, the latter appears more valuable considering its age, explicitness, and rejection of the superstitions of the ancient world.
Cyrus the Great entered the city of Babylon in 539 BCE, and after the winter, on the first day of spring, he was officially crowned: My numerous troops moved about undisturbed in the midst of Babylon. I did not allow anyone to terrorise the land of Sumer and Akkad. I kept in view the needs of Babylon and all its sanctuaries to promote their well being. The citizens of Babylon ................. I lifted their unbecoming yoke. Their dilapidated dwellings I restored. I put an end to their misfortunes.
The description of the coronation of Cyrus is the most elaborate one in the world written by the Greek philosopher, politician, and historian Xenephon (Cyropaedia of Xenophon, The Life of Cyrus The Great).
On the day of coronation, Cyrus read the Charter of Freedom out after he put on the crown with his hand in Marduk Temple.
Uncertain and the full text of the Charter was unavailable until an inscription was found during the excavation works in the old city of Ur in Mesopotamia. After the translation of the words, it was found out that the document was the same Charter. It is now kept in the British Museum and it is no exaggeration to say that it is one of the most precious historical records of the world.
In the Charter, after introducing himself and mentioning the names of his father, first, second, and third ancestors, Cyrus says that he is the monarch of Iran, Babylon, and the four continents:
I am Kourosh (Cyrus), King of the world, great king, mighty king, king of Babylon, king of the land of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four quarters, son of Camboujiyah (Cambyases), great king, king of Anshân, grandson of Kourosh (Cyrus), great king, king of Anshân, descendant of Chaish-Pesh (Teispes), great king, king of Anshân, progeny of an unending royal line, whose rule Bel and Nabu cherish, whose kingship they desire for their hearts, pleasure. When I well -disposed, entered Babylon, I set up a seat of domination in the royal palace amidst jubilation and rejoicing. Marduk the great god, caused the big-hearted inhabitations of Babylon to .................. me, I sought daily to worship him.
He continues:

At my deeds Marduk, the great lord, rejoiced and to me, Kourosh (Cyrus), the king who worshipped him, and to Camboujiyah (Cambyases), my son, the offspring of (my) loins, and to all my troops he graciously gave his blessing, and in good sprit before him we glorified exceedingly his high divinity. All the kings who sat in throne rooms, throughout the four quarters, from the Upper to the Lower Sea, those who dwelt in ..................., all the kings of the West Country, who dwelt in tents, brought me their heavy tribute and kissed my feet in Babylon. From ... to the cities of Ashur, Susa, Agade and Eshnuna, the cities of Zamban, Meurnu, Der as far as the region of the land of Gutium, the holy cities beyond the Tigris whose sanctuaries had been in ruins over a long period, the gods whose abode is in the midst of them, I returned to their places and housed them in lasting abodes.
I gathered together all their inhabitations and restored (to them) their dwellings. The gods of Sumer and Akkad whom Nabounids had, to the anger of the lord of the gods, brought into Babylon. I, at the bidding of Marduk, the great lord, made to dwell in peace in their habitations, delightful abodes.
May all the gods whom I have placed within their sanctuaries address a daily prayer in my favour before Bel and Nabu, that my days may be long, and may they say to Marduk my lord, "May Kourosh (Cyrus) the King, who reveres thee, and Camboujiyah (Cambyases) his son ..."
And:

Now that I put the crown of kingdom of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions on the head with the help of (Ahura) Mazda, I announce that I will respect the traditions, customs and religions of the nations of my empire and never let any of my governors and subordinates look down on or insult them until I am alive. From now on, till (Ahura) Mazda grants me the kingdom favor, I will impose my monarchy on no nation. Each is free to accept it , and if any one of them rejects it , I never resolve on war to reign. Until I am the king of Iran, Babylon, and the nations of the four directions, I never let anyone oppress any others, and if it occurs , I will take his or her right back and penalize the oppressor.
And until I am the monarch, I will never let anyone take possession of movable and landed properties of the others by force or without compensation. Until I am alive, I prevent unpaid, forced labor. To day, I announce that everyone is free to choose a religion. People are free to live in all regions and take up a job provided that they never violate other's rights.
No one could be penalized for his or her relatives' faults. I prevent slavery and my governors and subordinates are obliged to prohibit exchanging men and women as slaves within their own ruling domains. Such a traditions should be exterminated the world over.
I implore to (Ahura) Mazda to make me succeed in fulfilling my obligations to the nations of Iran (Persia), Babylon, and the ones of the four directions." (www.IranChamber.com).

So, even though the "contemporary" barrel may have been undated, within it one finds key dates and policy changes which completely undermine the Jehovah's Witnesses' understanding. The most glaring oversight by Jehovah's Witnesses is the date Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon, the first day of spring 538 B.C.E., roughly six months or less after Babylon fell to the Persians. So, for those six months there was no "king of Babylon" for the Jews to serve and their servitude amounts to around 69 1/2 years, not seventy. And if he was crowned a year later, in the spring of 537 B.C.E. as Jehovah's Witnesses imply, that amounts to a year and a half gap of the Jews not serving any king of Babylon.

Yet, even if Cyrus was crowned king of Babylon, from the first day of spring 538 B.C.E. he set the Jews and all the other Babylonian captives free. He imposed his monarchy (kingship) on no people unless they wished it, which the Jews did not. He outlawed unpaid forced labor (slavery), people were free to live in all regions, and displaced inhabitants were restored to their dwellings. The Jehovah's Witnesses' lack of basic understanding of this is incredulous. A little common sense, coupled with this "clay barrel" go a long way. Were the Jews still captive slaves after Cyrus set them free? No. Were they still captive slaves until they actually picked up their things and started walking home? Of course not. The Jews were not captive servants to any king of Babylon once Persia ruled. Again, Jehovah's Witnesses come up short of seventy years.

Fourth, Jehovah's Witnesses further argue, as stated above, that Cyrus proclaimed himself king of Babylon and at first did not alter the policy of the Babylonian dynasty or Nebuchadnezzar and therefore the Jews continued to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. The problem of course is that the authors of the Watchtower magazine failed to cite any authority for their self-serving statement that “at first [Cyrus] did not alter the policy …”. That statement is false, they offer no proof, and as just shown, Cyrus' Charter of Freedom above disproves any such notion. Cyrus did, in fact, alter the policy and set the Jews free early in his reign, within six months of his first ruling year of numerous years of ruling Babylon. There could not be a more profound policy change affecting the captive Jews, and other captives, than this.

Fifth, citing no verifiable authority they attempt to avoid this dilemma by asserting that the official decree freeing the exiled captives occurred in late 538 B.C.E. or early 537 B.C.E. in a last-ditch effort to push the date of captivity as close to 537 B.C.E. as possible. However, as shown above, it has been solidly established by archeologists and historians the world over that Cyrus’ decree was issued in 538 B.C.E..

Sixth, even assuming for the sake of argument that the roughly 50,000 exiles set free by Cyrus were not technically free until they began walking home after lengthy preparations, the Jehovah's Witnesses' Return theory still falls four months short of seventy years because that is how long it took them to complete the journey according to The Watchtower of May 1, 1952, pp. 271-2:

In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years.

Setting the Record Straight at pp. 4-5 is in accord with this position and clarifies that the seventy years was exactly seventy years to the month.

At 2 Kings 25:25, 26, the Bible reports that by the seventh month even those left behind, “all the people, from small to great,” fled to Egypt, leaving the land completely desolate, “ without an inhabitant.” As this factor was necessary for fulfillment (Isaiah 6:11, 12; Jeremiah 4:23, 25; 4:27,
29; 6:7, 8; 9:11; 24:8, 10), Jehovah’s Witnesses recognize that the seventy years of desolation could not officially begin to be counted until after the first of the seventh Jewish month.
Ezra 1:1 shows that it was “in the first year of Cyrus, the king of Persia,” or 538/7 B.C.E., that Cyrus issued the decree releasing the Jews from captivity.

The Bible notes that the Jews arrived back in their homeland by the seventh month, Tishri, which would be September 29-30, 537 B.C.E. (Ezra 3:1-3). From this date, Jehovah’s Witnesses count back seventy years to 607 B.C.E. as the year for Jerusalem’s destruction. Thus, the “ devastations of Jerusalem, [namely], seventy years,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet, were exactly seventy years in duration, running from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the seventh month of 537 B.C.E.

Accordingly, if the Jews' seventy year period of captivity ran exactly seventy years from the seventh month of 607 B.C.E. to the seventh month of 537 B.C.E., but they were set free and were not captive during the four months it took them to travel home, their seventy year Return theory fails because they were captive for only sixty-nine years and eight months. They could not have ‘served’ the king of Babylon, even if it was Cyrus, for the full seventy years.

Seventh, the entire argument that Cyrus the Persian, the anointed of Jehovah, who rescued the Jews and freed them was on equal footing with the previous Babylonian kings who slaughtered, captured and enslaved the Jews in the first place contradicts a literal reading of Jehovah’s prophecy to all the nations which was very sweeping in scope. Which of these nations of Jeremiah 25:11 were to serve the king of Babylon seventy years? According to Jeremiah 25:26 they included “... all the kings of the Medes ... all the kings of the north who are near and far away, one after the other, and all the [other] kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; ….” This includes Persia and the Medes who conquered Babylon. As such the Jehovah's Witnesses' theory would result in an incompatible irony - during the last two years of the Jews' seventy year Return theory the kings of Persia and the Medes would have had to serve itself.

Ultimately, the Jehovah's Witnesses' arguments supporting their Return theory - that the seventy years ended when the exiles returned to their homeland - are moot and irrelevant because as established above and in accordance with clear, unambiguous Scripture, the seventy years of servitude applied to all nations dominated by the Babylonian Empire, and that dominance, and the nations’ corresponding servitude to the kings(s) of Babylon ended in October 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell.

The seventy year prophecy ended while the Jews were in Babylon and only later did they return home. There is no viable Return theory. And because there is no Return theory, because it is an unscriptural and impossible concept to implement due to its many failures and inconsistencies the Jehovah's Witnesses incorrectly render Jeremiah 29:10 ‘at Babylon,’ rather than ‘for Babylon’. But the latter is what Jehovah through the mouth of Jeremiah intended.

10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years for Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'"

44

The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason in

1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

(ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

jonathan dough

Narkissus is right about this stuff.

52

Another Trinity Thread

by AwSnap in

can you clarify something for me please?

the jw's teach that most (to them, that means all) religions teach the trinity as being that god almighty, jesus, and the holy spirit are literally one, meaning the exact same 'person', none higher than the other, inseparable, the exact same thing.

they mainly use catholics and baptists, in my experience.

jonathan dough

52

Another Trinity Thread

by AwSnap in

can you clarify something for me please?

the jw's teach that most (to them, that means all) religions teach the trinity as being that god almighty, jesus, and the holy spirit are literally one, meaning the exact same 'person', none higher than the other, inseparable, the exact same thing.

they mainly use catholics and baptists, in my experience.

jonathan dough

Still doesn't make sense jonathan dough!

Sure it does. It might be a bit difficult to understand, but not impossible to grasp. Remember what Peter said about Paul's writings, difficult to understand but that didn't make it wrong. (No I'm not Paul). These are very smart people who have figured this out. Smarter than me I guarantee you. Of course it does require some serious contemplation.

44

The WTS's endpoint of the "70 Years"?

by Doug Mason in

1. does the wts date the end the 70 years as soon as the babylonian exiles returned to the land, or when they started the building of the altar?.

(ezra 2:68 makes it clear that the returnees arrived early enough for the exiles to be settled in their own towns (verse 70) well before they started to build the altar in the seventh month of an unidentified year (3:1)).. .

2. why were the returnees frightened of the people around them when they started to build the altar (ezra 3:3)?

jonathan dough

This following quotation does not explain whether it was the actual release of the Jews by Cyrus that ended the 70 years, or whether it was the “return” that ended the 70 years. But if it was the “return” that ended the 70 years, then it was not ended when they met later at the temple site about “October 1”.

The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (Chronicles 36:17 - 23)

It ended in 539. Yes, I know it is long. Is this a quote from 2 Chr 36:17-23? I don't think so. The end of the 70 years marks the end of a period of time only, the end of the Babylonian dominant era.

http://144000.110mb.com/607/i-3.html

So, in light of Jeremiah’s detailed explanation in chapter 25 and elsewhere that the seventy years of servitude applied to the nations of the earth that came under the domination of Babylon, the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory, what did he intend to convey in his letter to the exiles at Jeremiah 29:10? Did he mean that after the nations collectively finished serving Babylon seventy years when the empire fell he would turn his attention to the exiles and return them home? Or did he mean, as Jehovah’s Witnesses argue, that after the exiles returned home to Judah after having served at Babylon seventy years, beginning with the destruction of Jerusalem, he would turn his attention to them and bring them home from Babylon? That is precisely what they are arguing, but on its face it is quite obviously illogical. None-the-less, even assuming that their interpretation is correct it fails repeatedly under a simple test.

Under the test, if the seventy year period ended in 539 B.C.E. when Babylon fell and the Persians and Medes began to reign while the exiles were still in Babylon the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Return theory fails in three significant ways: a) the seventy years obviously did not end upon their return in 537 B.C.E., b) their seventy year period amounts to only 68 years from 607 B.C.E. to 539 B.C.E., and c) from the fall of Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. to the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. there was no king of Babylon to serve. So when exactly did the prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 end, whereby “these nations” would stop serving the king of Babylon seventy years? It ended in October, 539 B.C.E., not upon their return in 537 B.C.E..

First, nowhere in the Bible does it state that the return of the Jews marked the end of the seventy years. Second, Leviticus 26:32-35 whereby Moses prophesied the pending curse and punishment that befell the Jews states that Jehovah would scatter them among the nations and that the land would become a desolation, and Judah would pay off its Sabbaths all the days of its lying desolate while the exiles were in the land of their enemies, Babylon, and not after they returned.

32 And I, for my part, will lay the land desolate, and YOUR enemies who are dwelling in it will simply stare in amazement over it. 33 And YOU I shall scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe a sword after YOU; and YOUR land must become a desolation, and YOUR cities will become a desolate ruin.
34 “‘At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. 35 All the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were dwelling upon it.

So even though the exiles had not reoccupied the desolated lands and were still in Babylon, the seventy year prophetic curse ended.

Third, Jeremiah 25:12 states that only after the seventy years had ended, or been fulfilled, Jehovah would call to account against the king of Babylon, which he did beginning with its fall to Cyrus in October 539 B.C.E., one date Jehovah’s Witnesses and everyone else seems to agree on. The seventy years ended when Babylon fell, not two years later when the exiles stepped foot back on the soil of Judah.

12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations. 14 For even they themselves, many nations and great kings, have exploited them as servants; and I will repay them according to their activity and according to the work of their hands.’”

Fourth, Jeremiah 29:10 likewise concludes the end of the seventy year period of servitude while the Jews were in Babylon, not after they returned.

10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’
11 “‘For I myself well know the thoughts that I am thinking toward YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘thoughts of peace, and not of calamity, to give YOU a future and a hope. 12 And YOU will certainly call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to YOU.’
13 “‘And YOU will actually seek me and find [me], for YOU will search for me with all YOUR heart. 14 And I will let myself be found by YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘And I will gather YOUR body of captives and collect YOU together out of all the nations and out of all the places to which I have dispersed YOU,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. ‘And I will bring YOU back to the place from which I caused YOU to go into exile.’

After the seventy years ended Jehovah would turn his attention to his people and bring them back. The seventy years had to end first, in 539 B.C.E., in Babylon, and only then would his people be gathered together and brought back.

Fifth, 2 Chronicles 36:20 states that the captives removed to Babylon would be servants to the king “until the royalty of Persia began to reign,” which began October 539 B.C.E., and not until the exiles physically returned to Judah two years later.

"Furthermore, he carried off those remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign; ... "

Both sides agree that Babylon fell to the Persians in October 539 B.C.E.. That fall signaled the beginning of Persia’s reign. The prophet Daniel foretold its sudden collapse when he interpreted the writing on the wall for Babylon’s king Belshazzer. “This is the interpretation of the word: MENE, God has numbered [the days of] your kingdom and finished it.” And he did in 539 B.C.E..

Sixth, Jehovah’s Witnesses, at page 24, contradict themselves because they also claim that Ezra wrote that the seventy years ran until the first year of Cyrus which they submit was his first regnal year, which would actually be his second year of having power.

"... the inspired Bible writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23)"

At Ezra 1:1, reference is made to “the first year of Cyrus,” not “the year Cyrus became king” (or accession year), so he was speaking of the first regnal year of Cyrus, which cuneiform documentation places in 538/537B.C.E. Jewish historian Josephus corroborates by referring to “the first year of the reign of Cyrus.”—Antiquitiesof the Jews, Book XI, Chapter I.

That statement is false - the inspired Bible writer Ezra never said that - and furthermore, their position contradicts the Jehovah’s Witnesses' own claim under its Return theory that the seventy years ran until the exiles returned to Judah in the fall of 537 B.C.E., long after the decree setting them free was issued, and after Cyrus began to reign. Not only is it a contradiction, but it is not correct. In the first place it contravenes 2 Chronicles 36:22 just quoted which pegs the end of the 70 years at the inception of the reign of Persian royalty, which began immediately when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E., not one year later beginning with the second, or ‘regnal’ year of Cyrus’ rule. Again, common sense is in order. Setting the Record Straight at 24 claims “the first year of Cyrus” was his first regnal year which would be his second actual year of ruling Babylon. However that would create a one year gap between Babylon’s fall and the Persians’ reign, and surely no one could suggest that when Cyrus made his triumphant entry 16 days after Babylon’s fall in October 539 B.C.E. to his army that the reign of Persia had not yet begun or that the Babylonian Empire was still ruling and in control. Daniel said that the Babylonian kingdom was finished.

Read Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:21-23 carefully. Ezra did not state that the seventy years ran until the first regnal (or second actual) year of Cyrus the Persian’s reign. Ezra did not say that in order for the seventy years to come to an end Cyrus had to issue his decree setting them free which was long after Persia began to rule. One of their contradictions ends in Babylon, the other in Judah, and it is strategically and scripturally not feasible to occur at the exact same time or in the same year.

So what basis do the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim supports their belief that the seventy year prophecy ended upon the exiles’ return to Judah in 537 B.C.E. and not earlier when Babylon fell to Persia in 539 B.C.E.? Nothing, as it turns out, although they allude to their reasoning in Setting the Record Straight at p. 25, 26:

“And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm.”—Ezra 1:1 (see also 2 Chronicles 36:22).
The highlighted portion of the above-quoted verse serves as unimpeachable evidence that “Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah” had not yet been accomplished, even by the “first year of Cyrus,” proving conclusively that the conquest of Babylon by Persia was not the determining factor in fulfilling Jeremiah’s prophecy.

All that this vague and convoluted assertion attempts to state is that the seventy year period allegedly ended when the Jews returned in 537 B.C.E. and not when Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.; that the Jews’ return had not happened by the time Babylon fell. Well, of course it hadn’t, but more importantly, it wasn’t a requirement because the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., not on their return. Because their return happened two years after Persia conquered Babylon the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory fails, they claim, because Babylon was conquered two years before their return.

This false and distorted piece of logic begs the essential question “When did the seventy years end?” Had they been forthcoming and actually quoted Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah rather than force the reader to hunt for its meaning it would have been self-evident, but more importantly, it would have proven them wrong which is perhaps why they did not wish to bring it to the readers' attention in the first place.

We can determine what Jehovah’s word was by reference to Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chronicles 36:22 which they quote in support of their position. And even though neither one of these verses specify what the word of Jehovah was either, the context and subject matter of those Scriptures indicates that it referred to Jehovah’s promise to return the Jews and Cyrus’ decree setting them free.

1 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s word from the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia so that he caused a cry to pass through all his realm, and also in writing, saying:
2 “This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3 Whoever there is among YOU of all his people, may his God prove to be with him. So let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of Jehovah the God of Israel—he is the [true] God—which was in Jerusalem. 4 As for anyone that is left from all the places where he is residing as an alien, let the men of his place assist him with silver and with gold and with goods and with domestic animals along with the voluntary offering for the house of the [true] God, which was in Jerusalem.’”(Ezra 1:1-4 see also 2 Chronicles 36:22,23).

Jehovah’s word related to the return of the Jews and is found at Jeremiah 29:10. But only after the seventy years had ended would he turn his attention to returning the Jews.

10 “For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.’

This, in actuality, is unimpeachable evidence that the seventy years of servitude came to an end first in 539 B.C.E. and only later, in 537 B.C.E. would the Jews return. Accordingly, it is not necessary or even possible that the ‘return’ occur before Babylon fell and the seventy years ended. Even with their improper rendering that the seventy years would be accomplished at Babylon, the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory lacks merit. Jeremiah 29:10 supports the Dominant Babylonian Empire theory and disproves the Jehovah’s Witnesses' Return theory.

52

Another Trinity Thread

by AwSnap in

can you clarify something for me please?

the jw's teach that most (to them, that means all) religions teach the trinity as being that god almighty, jesus, and the holy spirit are literally one, meaning the exact same 'person', none higher than the other, inseparable, the exact same thing.

they mainly use catholics and baptists, in my experience.

jonathan dough

52

Another Trinity Thread

by AwSnap in

can you clarify something for me please?

the jw's teach that most (to them, that means all) religions teach the trinity as being that god almighty, jesus, and the holy spirit are literally one, meaning the exact same 'person', none higher than the other, inseparable, the exact same thing.

they mainly use catholics and baptists, in my experience.

jonathan dough

(which I suppose is due to the tension between the popular affirmation that "God is a person" and the theological formulation that "God is three persons," which calls for questioning the meaning of "person") this may explain, in part, the confusion in WT argumentation.

Yes. Glad you brought this up. Skip if you don't like to read.

The three spiritual Persons or hypostases of the triune God are not to be confused with material human beings, persons like you or I.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses erroneously think of “Person” as an individual self-conscious human person (Encyclopedia of Religion, 57), and we humans don’t engage in the kind of conduct the three Persons of the Trinity do, such as inner dialogue where people combined within a human person speak to each other. Or, they argue that the Holy Spirit cannot be a person because it appeared as a dove or flames of fire, never in the form of a human. And, it seems irrational to them that one such person can inhabit another person, so the Holy Person cannot be a person (Should You Believe, Chapter 6). They write:

On one occasion the holy spirit appeared as a dove. On another occasion it appeared as tongues of fire - never as a person. (Should You Believe, Chapter 8).
[R]egarding Samson, Judges 14:6 relates: “The spirit of Yahweh seized on him and though he had no weapon in his hand he tore the lion in pieces.” (JB) Did a divine person actually enter or seize Samson, manipulating his body to do what he did? No, it was really “the power of the LORD [that] made Samson strong. (TEV) (Should You Believe, Chapter 6) (emphasis added).
A comparison of Bible texts that refer to the holy spirit shows that it is spoken of as ‘filling’ people; they can be ‘baptized’ with it; and they can be “anointed” with it … None of these expressions would be appropriate if the holy spirit were a person. (Reasoning from the Scriptures [New York, Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985], 380) (Reasoning)

First, the Jehovah's Witnesses fail to recognize that we are dealing with spirit, not flesh (the Holy Spirit is, after all, spirit), and the Bible is replete with examples of spirit persons entering individuals such as the spirit person Satan who entered Judas (Luke 22:3), and spirit demons who routinely inhabit people (Matthew 8:29-31). Furthermore, Jehovah is a spirit person and is the Holy Spirit who dwells in the Christian believer (2 Corinthians 3:17, 18 NWT), as does Christ (Romans 8:9-11; see also John 4:24). The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ objections in this regard are groundless.

And simply because the Holy Spirit took the form of a dove or tongues of fire and not a human person does not mean He is not a spirit person. After all, the Almighty is a spirit person though invisible (Colossians 1:15). Angels are spirit persons who took human form, but their mere appearance as humans does not mean they are angels, or that angels who never took human form are not spirit (Genesis 18).

Second, “Person” should be regarded as a contemporary misnomer, an imperfect expression because it connotes a separate rational and moral individual. It is a word erroneously derived from the Latin persona and misapplied in the English modern era, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done.

Persona: A Latin word regularly used to refer to the three ‘persons’ of the Trinity and to the one ‘person’ of Christ. It therefore fulfills the role in Latin theology performed by hypostasis in Greek. The natural translation into ‘person’ in English is misleading. Persona originally meant a ‘mask’ and then a ‘role.’ It is used to indicate an individual in his or her external presentation, and does not convey the idea of self-consciousness or the internal psychological content suggested by the English word ‘person’ with its close link to the word ‘personality.’ (Oxford, 1210)

Third, as mentioned above, the hypostatic “Person” refers to a form in which the divine essence exists, not a created human, but three personal self-distinctions (The New Bible Dictionary [Grand Rapids, Michigan, W. M. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962], 1300) (New Bible Dictionary).

In most formularies the doctrine is stated by saying that God is one in His essential being, but that in this being there are three Persons, yet so as not to form separate and distinct individuals. They are three modes or forms in which the divine essence exists. ‘Person’ is, however, an imperfect expression of the truth in as much as the term denotes to us a separate rational and moral individual. But in the being of God there are not three individuals, but only three personal self-distinctions within the one divine essence. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)

Fourth, while each Person is self-conscious, He never acts independently.

[P]ersonality in man implies independence of will, actions, and feelings, leading to behavior peculiar to the person. This cannot be thought of in connection with the Trinity; each Person is self-conscious and self-directing, yet never acting independently or in opposition. (ibid.)

Fifth, The Jehovah’s Witnesses argue,“ Thousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual…. Why would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? … What purpose would that serve except to mislead people?” (Should You Believe, Chapter 6).

This line of argument illustrates their confusion. The triune God is not split into three. He is one undivided individual as just mentioned. His diversity manifests itself in operations and characteristics:

When we say that God is a unity we mean that though God is in Himself a threefold centre of life, His life is not split into three. He is one in essence, in personality, and in will. When we say that God is a Trinity in unity we mean that there is unity in diversity, and that diversity manifests itself in Persons, in characteristics, and in operations. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)
We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity,” (Catholic Catechism, 75). “[T]he Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.” Athanasian Creed; DS 75; ND16)” (Catholic Catechism, 79).

Sixth, there is subordination of relation and order among the three Persons, but not in nature:

Moreover, the subsistence and operations of the three Persons are marked by a certain order involving a certain subordination in relation, though not in nature. The Father as the fount of deity is First: He is said to originate. The Son, eternally begotten of the Father, is Second: he is said to reveal. The Spirit, eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son, is Third: He is said to execute.
While this does not suggest priority in time or in dignity, since all three Persons are divine and eternal, it does suggest an order of precedence in operation and revelation. Thus we can say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, by the Holy Spirit. (New Bible Dictionary, 1299, 1300)

Seventh, the three Persons are permanent features of God’s three distinct manners of His activity:

Trinitarian theology is par excellence the theology of relationship. Its fundamental principle is that God, who is self-communication and self-giving love for us, is from all eternity love perfectly given and received. The traditional formula “God is three persons in one nature” compactly expresses that there are permanent features of God’s eternal being (the three persons) that are the ontological precondition for the three distinct manners of God’s tripersonal activity in the world (as Father, Son and Spirit). (Encyclopedia of Religion, 55)

Eighth, each Person has the divine nature, but each has it differently:

Whatever is other, distinct, plural, personal, and proper in the Godhead is exclusively a matter of relationship. Father, Son and Spirit do not differ as God, but in the way each is God with respect to the others. Each has and is the divine nature, but each has it differently: the Father from Himself, the Son from the Father, the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. God, then, is one in substance, three in Person, and what is significant about this distinction, what makes it non-contradictory, is that what is personal in the Godhead is not something absolute, but something purely relative, (Council of Florence, 1442). (Catholic Encyclopedia, 303)

Ninth, the doctrine also holds that the divine Persons exist in their relationships to one another:

The three divine Persons exist in their particular, unique natures as Father, Son and Spirit in their relationships to one another, and are determined through these relationships. It is in these relationships that they are Persons. Being a person in this respect means existing-in-relationship. (Trinity and the Kingdom, 172)
[T]he three divine Persons possess the same individual, indivisible and one divine nature, but they possess it in varying ways. The Father possesses it of himself; the Son and the Spirit have it from the Father (ibid., 172). The Trinitarian Persons subsist in the common divine nature; they exist in their relations to one another. (ibid., 173)

“A divine Person is a non-interchangeable existence of the divine nature.” By the word ‘existence’ - existential - [he] meant: existence, in the light of another” (ibid., 173).

http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html#3

52

Another Trinity Thread

by AwSnap in

can you clarify something for me please?

the jw's teach that most (to them, that means all) religions teach the trinity as being that god almighty, jesus, and the holy spirit are literally one, meaning the exact same 'person', none higher than the other, inseparable, the exact same thing.

they mainly use catholics and baptists, in my experience.

jonathan dough

Largest denominations in the world