Posts by JosephMalik

28

John 19:14, a devastating contradiction?

by DT in

matthew, mark and luke claim that jesus died on passover (nisan 14) john, however, claims that jesus died on the day of preparation for passover (nisan 13) "now it was preparation of the passover" -john 19:14 nwt (it helps to read the context, several verses before and after.

) john also doesn't mention the lord's evening meal with his his apostles on passover.

it would have been impossible, because he was already dead, according to john.. the bible contains many contradictions that can possibly be reconciled if you have enough imagination, but this contradiction seems pretty blatant.

JosephMalik

Burntheships,

You make a lot of assumptions. But anyone following the Law of Moses would come to only one conclusion and this is what we are talking about. Answer the questions and then you should know the answer. What you have gathered so far should tell you that nearly everyone has it wrong. You said:

After His arrest, and before His crucifixion, Jesus was subjected to lengthy legal procedures. He was brought before Annas (see Jn 18:13,19-23); before Caiaphas (Jn 18:24); before the Sanhedrin (Lk 22:66-71); before Herod (Lk 23:6-11); before Pilate (Jn 18:28-40).

All this could hardly have taken place in only a night and part of a day. The theory that Jesus celebrated the Passover on Tuesday night allows time for all these proceedings.

One must be brain dead not to realize that a great deal of time was involved in all this. And yet they say nothing, so that much was OK, but your theory is wrong. Forget about your ancient sources, they did not know the answer either. Use only the Bible the way I did and you will come to the correct answers without contradictions. This was all written up over 25 years ago but you will find a fairly detailed account in the supplement to my book called Beyond Watchtower doctrine at: http://home.earthlink.net/~jmalik/

Joseph

88

Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?

by compound complex in

greetings, friends:.

a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.

the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.

JosephMalik

I must humbly disagree. In ancient times people didn't bandy about with words like "prophesied" like we might today.(After all, this was an era when "blasphemy" could get you killed.)

CyrusThePersian.

Nonsense. It happened all the time and they were not killed for it. So much for the brilliant authorities you used. Perhaps you can write them and tell them that they should read the bible more carefully. Then they would know that what they were saying was a lie. Have you never read the truth where it says: Matt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. And since Jude knew exactly what their views were he could use their own such prophecies against them. You have no argument. But there is one thing to learn from this. People are always pulling things out of their rears and getting away with it. This is what I would like the readers to be aware of and guard against.

Joseph.

88

Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?

by compound complex in

greetings, friends:.

a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.

the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.

JosephMalik

The problem with Jude's authenticity is not so much that he used "common thoughts and expressions" but that he thought that 1st Enoch was the real deal, an inspired work. In v.14 of Jude, he uses the word "prophesied." This shows that Jude believed 1st Enoch to be a God-breathed work. 1st Enoch obviously isn't, It's a forgery. The fact that Jude didn't know this severely discredits his epistle.

CyrusThePersian,

Jude did not say that 1 Enoch was inspired scripture as you say here or even quote heavily from it as many such works existed at the time and you should be able to see that Jude like James was once one of those he now addresses. Enoch said some things that Jude could use against them. And since he knew that it was something they knew or believed in he could use it to make his point. The word prophesied does not have to mean more than that and authenticate everything else in this book. We prophesy all the time here and get some things right also that others can use. But that does not make us inspired writers. Since they were of the elite we would expect them to know such works. Jude like James finally involved himself in the same battle Paul had been fighting for many years. It was the same battle in which Paul appointed men like Timothy and together with them appointed other overseers to fight it. Paul obtained his authority from Christ and as an Apostle with real and demonstrated authority could use it both for himself and also transfer it to others by laying on of hands. Such Apostolic appointments were used to put a stop to false doctrine and those responsible for it like these Jews. Once they all died, this ability and such physical links were lost and no one else can be called an overseer with some kind of Godly authority over any other person claiming to be a disciple. The scriptures and such things taught in them would now be enough to do this.

Joseph

28

John 19:14, a devastating contradiction?

by DT in

matthew, mark and luke claim that jesus died on passover (nisan 14) john, however, claims that jesus died on the day of preparation for passover (nisan 13) "now it was preparation of the passover" -john 19:14 nwt (it helps to read the context, several verses before and after.

) john also doesn't mention the lord's evening meal with his his apostles on passover.

it would have been impossible, because he was already dead, according to john.. the bible contains many contradictions that can possibly be reconciled if you have enough imagination, but this contradiction seems pretty blatant.

JosephMalik

DT,

I have explained this many times here on this board. The WT does not understand it just as you and others do not understand it. But this is no reason to call it a contradiction. The Passover is how long? A few hours? one meal? Seven Days? And is it a Sabbath day when this meal is eaten? Is it still a Sabbath day the next afternoon? Was our Lord killed on a Sabbath day? How many days of preparation are their during Passover? One? More? If there are more than one then why? What was the wave harvest and when did it begin? When was the unleavened bread prepared from new grain? When are all these things on the Jewish calendar? These are just some of the questions that should be asked and when answered correctly you will learn that our Lord was held in Roman custody for six days during passover and nailed up at night around nine PM or on the third hour on a day of preparation, on the day when they were preparing unleavened bread from new grain for that sabbath day that also was the seventh day of Passover.

Joseph

10

The Bible admits it is errant

by heretic5 in

according to the bible, the bible contains "leaven".. matthew 13:33 another parable spake he unto them; the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.. luke 13:21 it is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.. .

according to the bible, "leaven" is to be avoided.. matthew 16:6 then jesus said unto them, take heed and beware of the leaven of the pharisees and of the sadducees.. mark 8:15 and he charged them, saying, take heed, beware of the leaven of the pharisees, and of the leaven of herod.. .

according to the bible, "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the bible.. deuteronomy 19:15 one witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.. matthew 18:16 but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.. 2 corinthians 13:1 this is the third time i am coming to you.

JosephMalik

where does Paul claim to be writing God's own word?

Exterminator,

Paul did not do that but Peter and the Church in Antioch did that for him. It was enough for everyone to know that Paul was authorized by Christ personally as His apostle and one of the 12 faithful ones personally chosen by Him and as such was authorized to speak for Him. This was recognized also in Antioch where the speaker said: Ac 13:2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. Peter also recognized Paul as such and said: 2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. That made what Paul wrote the word of God as you choose to put it. Peter also recognized this gospel of NT texts themselves as scripture and said: 1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Joseph

4

1 Tim 2:11-15 Subjection: Is Paul's reasoning flawed?

by Steve J in

a woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

i do not permit a woman to teach, or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

for adam was created first, then eve.

JosephMalik

Steve J,

This was covered in another thread but you give Paul credit for saying things that Jewish believers supported and Paul argues against. Paul supported the equality of women and did not require them to have a head covering. Their long hair was adequate for them. It would be nice if you included the entire section in which such arguments were put forth. Then Paul's rebuttal would become visible.

Joseph

10

The Bible admits it is errant

by heretic5 in

according to the bible, the bible contains "leaven".. matthew 13:33 another parable spake he unto them; the kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.. luke 13:21 it is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.. .

according to the bible, "leaven" is to be avoided.. matthew 16:6 then jesus said unto them, take heed and beware of the leaven of the pharisees and of the sadducees.. mark 8:15 and he charged them, saying, take heed, beware of the leaven of the pharisees, and of the leaven of herod.. .

according to the bible, "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the bible.. deuteronomy 19:15 one witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.. matthew 18:16 but if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.. 2 corinthians 13:1 this is the third time i am coming to you.

JosephMalik

He would say he's just Paul, a man, wouldn't he?

Exterminator,

No, he would say he was an apostle (one of the 12 actually) and had the authority to do this. You can hardly read any of his letters without him saying that he as an apostle of Jesus Christ just like Peter did.

Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

1Co 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

1Co 9:1 Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?

1Co 9:2 If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to you: for the seal of mine apostleship are ye in the Lord.

1Co 15:9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia:

2Co 12:12 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

Ga 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Eph 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Col 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,

1Ti 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

Joseph

88

Paul's Letters: Part of "All Scripture ..." ?

by compound complex in

greetings, friends:.

a friend - a former jw - gave me thomas paine's the age of reason: being an investigation of true and fabulous theology.

the mind boggles as i begin, haltingly, to fathom what many of you have already learned and shared here on jwd: the authenticity of the bible is seriously in question.

JosephMalik

Leolaia,

In a way you are right when you show that Jude contained words and phrases that were also found in the book of 1 Enoch. But such use was not intended to canonize his writings or verify their accuracy. They were by then common thoughts and expressions used also by a specific group of Jewish Christians he was trying to reach, heavy hitters that took Nazarite vows or were deeply involved in Judaism in much the same way that James was. But Jude did not beat around the bush like James who also tried to protect himself in his letter. He went straight for their throats and that would have included James who was also involved this way and with such views for much of his life. They would know who they were by the words used which you also compared to 1 Enoch. He would show them that they were wrong and their Christianity would not save them just as it did not save the angels that left Egypt their first estate with the Jews. Such angels (Egyptian witnesses) were witnesses to the miracles that freed Israel and embraced it only to afterward lose their lives in the wilderness. His message was a warning for such Jews to repent: 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. [Jews who separated from Gentiles] 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. [as compared to those that did not] 22 And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. This was a battle of long standing and it was now time to put an end to it.

Joseph

32

Romans 8

by confused and lost in

i have just finished reading the book of romans and i have a question ?

a person cannot please god unless he is controlled by the spirit.

(rom 8:8,9) nor can he put to death the misdeeds of the body except by the spirit (rom 8:13) the next verse (v14) then tells us that all who are led by gods spirit are gods sons.in fact they are adopted as his children.however,according to the wts , these verses only apply to the annointed.so,my question is this.if only the annointed are led by gods spirit,whose spirit leads the "other sheep" ?

JosephMalik

You said that the book of James (or as I am understanding you) is a reversal by James. Where do you get that impression from James? I could most definitely see the book of Hebrews, but James?

Ex-icoc,

Yes, I can understand that very well. The WT wrote a little brown book on James some time ago and got it all wrong as well. This is why I said he was a proud man and this letter was difficult for him. It does not state this problem outright or his involvement in it but if you were a Jew that knew James background and what he did to Paul as was shown earlier in Acts 21 then his words could mean nothing else. We are talking about a long time over 20 years or more with thousands of Jewish Christians involved on his side. I commented on this in other posts but let me see what I can bring up.

1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

This letter was intended for a very select audience (Paul’s territories) where the problem mainly existed for Paul. James could take care of things locally himself. After cooling them down a bit he said:

1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

You see James is not supporting the Law anymore. They were guilty of not bridling their tongue, forcing circumcision upon believers being critical of them, feeling superior through their genealogy but now they should be found as decent people doing good things. You know what he did to Paul and taught before regarding vows and the temple but now you do not see him teaching it anymore. This is why most do not see what is going on. And it gets better.

2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

He respected the Law as you see here, but he no longer supported it for salvation. He showed its shortcomings including the 10 commandments but now opted for the law of liberty which does not judge us by such rules. And it goes on and on like this so I will leave it for you to analyze like this. By knowing what they did and how they acted before by law and custom, you can see his rebuttal and change. Now they should be known to everyone (Gentile) as decent human beings instead. This is not some doctrine I am pushing but what I can see in the text that will help others to enjoy this law of liberty offered in scripture to them as well especially if they were once enslaved by men like James themselves.

Joseph

32

Romans 8

by confused and lost in

i have just finished reading the book of romans and i have a question ?

a person cannot please god unless he is controlled by the spirit.

(rom 8:8,9) nor can he put to death the misdeeds of the body except by the spirit (rom 8:13) the next verse (v14) then tells us that all who are led by gods spirit are gods sons.in fact they are adopted as his children.however,according to the wts , these verses only apply to the annointed.so,my question is this.if only the annointed are led by gods spirit,whose spirit leads the "other sheep" ?

JosephMalik

The trip you mentioned to "Jerusalem that failed" is that referring to the Acts 15?

Ex-icoc,

Yes, but Paul’s trip in Acts 21 some 14 years later also failed to solve this problem and nearly resulted in his death by fellow believers. It also compromised the faith since Paul needing time with them submitted to taking the "vows." This was a very bad time for the faith. Paul would continue to mature however and through support by Christ and fellow believers finally overcome this problem.

Ex-icoc said: What do you mean w/ the conversion of James? Is that not Acts 15 as well

No! James and the Jews in Jerusalem continued to keep the law. So we find Paul in a continuing struggle with them everywhere as Romans will also show. James actually tricked Paul by putting an end to this debate in Acts 15 and offered a truce before it could be fully resolved. But this truce was intended only for Gentile believers and not for Jews. Somehow Paul failed to grasp this as he applied it to both sides. He was forcibly corrected in Acts 21 as to how it was really intended to apply. Notice what was then said to him after telling him to take the vows: 25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication. Paul was in trouble again and needed time to reason with them. We see the conversion of James much later and most likely after Hebrews was written in the letter bearing his name.

Ex-icoc said: so as I read it you are contradicting yourself, since you say that "it finally settled the matter" or do you mean Acts 21?.

No, Acts 21 did not settle the matter but made it more serious an issue and deadly at that. I mean the letter James wrote, a difficult task for such a proud and influential man and the book of Hebrews. Which came first I do not know but Paul’s letters were all so full of this same issue that any one of them could have served this purpose as well.

Ex-icoc said: And I really dont quite get your point with James Peter and John keeping the law. Does not Gal 2:14 talk about Peter not keeping the Law.

Finally yes, a reference to Acts 15 but not when the matter first surface with him at Antioch. Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: They were together now since Peter ran to Jerusalem to James and it was not until Paul arrived there and confronted them as Gal shows, when he made this point to them that Peter listened and supported Paul. We know that James did not from Acts 21 and possibly John as well. I could now see how this finally shook John so badly that he focused on love which was his solution to this controversy. The references for all this were never hidden and have always been in plain sight. All we have to do is to carefully follow the story.

Joseph