Posts by Vanderhoven7

25

They didnt leave because of doctrine-they left BECAUSE OF THEMSELVES!

by Joliette in

this is an actually quote made by a district overseer at a convention in dekalb illinois in august of 2008...yep, no joking, swear on a holy bible...he actually said that.

just thought about the quote and thought i should post it to share it with the fellow 'apostates' (sarcasm)..

Vanderhoven7

<<lost their faith (meaning faith in WTS)>>

Excellent point Inbetween!

169

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi Dan,

<<Also, why would Jesus use a metaphore or parable about Hell knowing that it was a pagan belief or doctrine?>>

I believe Jesus painstakenly retold the very literal story that the Pharisees told to dismantle their theology which they used to justify not helping the poor in Israel. This was their doctrine; their tradition.

LET'S LOOK AT TRADITION: WHAT ELEMENTS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION ARE INCLUDED IN THIS STORY?

ABRAHAM'S BOSOM: History confirms that Hades (Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Sheol) was originally understood by the Jews to be, “the ultimate resting place of all mankind". (Vine's OT Dictionary) The Hebrew scriptures relegated the good as well as the wicked to this location at death. (Gen. 42:38, Ps.16:9-10, Job 14:13).

The idea that sheol was not a place of slumber, but of conscious experience first developed in the intertestamental period with the influence of Greek culture and philosophy upon Judaism. The apparent enigma of the righteous experiencing sheol (Hades) along with the wicked was then tentatively resolved, in some but not all rabbinical circles, by compartmentalizing sheol into two distinct regions. As The New International Dictionary Of New Testament Theology states, "With the infiltration of the Greek doctrine of immortality of the soul, paradise becomes the dwelling place of the righteous during the intermediate state."

In Jesus' day, the part of Hades where the righteous were detained was commonly referred to by the Pharisees as Abraham's Bosom. This was a place of rest and banqueting where the souls of the righteous enjoyed "intimate fellowship with the father of the race (Abraham), who is still alive and blessed in death."

PLACE OF TORMENT: While the righteous were segregated and awaiting redemption in a part of sheol having paradisiacal dimensions, Pharisaic tradition consigned the wicked to an area of sheol where punishments were applied commensurate with one's performance in life. This traditional belief which similarly developed during the intertestamental period is clearly documented in the Apocrypha (e.g. Judith 16:17) and the Pseudepigrapha (e.g. II Enoch 40:12). Jewish literature (i.e. religious folklore) circulating in the first century often graphically detailed the retributive misery of the dammed in Hades. For example, licentious men were spoken of as hanging by their genitals, women who suckled their young in public, as hanging by their breasts, and those who talked during synagogue prayers, as having their mouths filled with hot coals.

A point worthy of note here, is that when Jesus used the terms "Abraham's Bosom", and "Torment" in reference to Hades, he was employing terms and concepts not rooted in scripture, but in rabbinical tradition. He was using terms fully comprehended by the Pharisees and clearly endorsed by their teachings about the afterlife. And equally important, Abraham's Bosom, and Torment were terms the Pharisees used regularly to justify their total neglect of the poor.

HISTORICAL NOTE: That the view of hell depicted in Luke 16 was an integral part of first century Pharisaic tradition is nowhere more clearly delineated than in the following excerpt written by Josephus, (himself a Pharisee) to explain the Jewish concept of Hades to the Greeks.

Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region...allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to everyone's behavior and manners... while the just shall obtain an incorruptible and never-fading kingdom. These are now indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are confined. For there is one decent into this region...the just are guided to the right hand and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor any briers there; but the countenance of the Fathers and of the just, which they see always smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good-will, but as prisoners driven by violence... they are struck with a fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby: and not only so, but where they see the place of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it. (The Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, A.M., Translator ) (Underscoring mine)

Now assuming that justification for the Pharisee's indifference to the poor was drawn from their tradition and not from the scriptures, Jesus had a choice of doing one of two things to combat their rationale. He could either reason with the Pharisees from scripture to prove their tradition was unsound, or he could enter into their tradition with them, mimic it with mastery and expose its absurdity. Jesus chose the latter course because He knew that reasoning with the Pharisees would prove futile.

The question is - how did the Pharisees use their traditional teachings about Sheol to justify themselves (to look holy) while ignoring the needs of the poor. And, how does the story of the rich Man and Lazarus unravel their theology/tradition of men?

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi James,

Again thanks for your comments.

I think it is helpful to look at sheol in broader context. You quote two verses which don't mention torment or give us any kind of a picture similar to that found in Luke 16. Here is what I have found in my studies concerning Sheol.

FACTS THAT BECOME APPARENT ABOUT SHEOl:

Sheol is located downward in the dust of the earth. (Job 17:13-16)

Both the good and the bad go to Sheol.

Jacob and his sons go to Sheol. (Gen.42:38)

David planned to rest in Sheol. (Ps.16:9-10)

David desired his enemies also go down to Sheol, not in peace, but

in blood. (I Kings 2:6,9)

By going to Sheol, Job misses God's wrath. Job actually asks to be

hidden in Sheol to escape God's anger. (Job 14:13)

The terms death, the grave, and destruction are so closely bound as to be often interchangeable in the text (Pr.15:11, 24; 27:20).

Not too much goes on in Sheol.

There is no wisdom or knowledge there and no activity or work for

those who go down to silence. (Eccl.9:10 Ps.6:5 Ps. 31:17)

No person praises God from Sheol (Ps.6:5; 88:10-12)

Figurative language is often associated with Sheol.

Beds are made In Sheol. Maggots are spread beneath the dead and worms cover them like a blanket. (Is.14:11)

Sheol is even personified.

It is pictured as snatching sinners and robbing people of their

remaining years. (Job 24:19);

Sheol has an appetite. It opens its mouth without limit.

It is never satisfied. (Pr.27:20) Sheol is naked before God.

Not only is Sheol personified, but it is also presented in satire, (while incorporating some of the mythological views of Babylon and Egypt), to ridicule special visitors. Sheol, for example, is said to stir up dead kings, and have them rise from their thrones and welcome Israel's enemies. (Is.14:9,11,15; Ez.32: 21,24,27) These same leaders are also personified for dramatic purposes and pictured as carrying on a conversation in Sheol while still engaged in their lifetime pursuits. i.e. ruling

MOST IMPORTANT: God will redeem souls from Sheol's power. (Ps.49:15)

Sheol will not have the last word. Sheol is going to be plagued and death is going to be destroyed! (Hos.13:14 KJV) Sheol is not eternal therefore, but temporary. God is with the righteous in Sheol and His promise is not to abandon them there forever. (Ps.16:10; 139:8).

Vander

25

They didnt leave because of doctrine-they left BECAUSE OF THEMSELVES!

by Joliette in

this is an actually quote made by a district overseer at a convention in dekalb illinois in august of 2008...yep, no joking, swear on a holy bible...he actually said that.

just thought about the quote and thought i should post it to share it with the fellow 'apostates' (sarcasm)..

Vanderhoven7

Hi Brotherdan,

Yes, I'd like the reference material on this change if you can get your hands on it.

Thanks, Vander

25

They didnt leave because of doctrine-they left BECAUSE OF THEMSELVES!

by Joliette in

this is an actually quote made by a district overseer at a convention in dekalb illinois in august of 2008...yep, no joking, swear on a holy bible...he actually said that.

just thought about the quote and thought i should post it to share it with the fellow 'apostates' (sarcasm)..

Vanderhoven7

Yes, Jehovah's Witnesses are not disfellowshipped over doctrine. They are disfellowshipped if they say what they believe when it is contrary to WTS doctrine. That's conduct. In other words, keep your beliefs to yourself if you want to escape Armageddon.

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Although there was no single Jewish doctrine of hell, history establishes that the idea of everlasting conscious punishment of the wicked was affirmed in some rabbinical circles as early as the intertestamental period. This is clearly documented in Judith, one of the books of the Apocrypha (hidden books) written about 150 BC.

“W oe to the nations that rise up against my race;

The Lord Almighty will take vengeance of them

in the day of judgment,

To put fire and worms in their flesh;

And they shall weep and feel their pain forever.”

Jth. 16:17

Also in the Pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”), consisting of 77 books thought to have been written between 200 BC. and 100 AD., the theme of ongoing conscious torment is depicted as at least one of the retributive scenarios for the wicked. In the second book of Enoch for example, a rather terrifying place is described, where;

murky fire constantly flameth aloft, and a fiery river

(comes) forth, and the whole place is everywhere fire,

and everywhere frost and ice, thirst and shivering,

while the bonds are very cruel, and the angels fearful

and merciless, bearing angry weapons, merciless

torture. 2 En. 40:12

Early post apostolic history also witnesses to the continuity of the doctrine of eternal torment within both Jewish and Christian traditions. Jewish literature during this period often graphically detailed the retributive misery of the damned. For example, licentious men are spoken of as hanging by their genitals, woman who suckled their young in public, as hanging by their breasts, and those who talked during synagogue prayers, as having their mouths filled with hot coals. Christian literature of the period, is strikingly similar in nature. The New Testament Apocrypha for example, including books such as, “The Apocalypse of Peter”, “The Acts of Thomas” and “The Apocalypse of Paul”, speak of blasphemers hanging by their tongues, women who had had abortions, as sitting neck deep in excrement, and those who turned their backs on God as being slowly baked in fire.

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Thanks for answering my questions

Where did the designation "Abraham's Bosom" and the torments associated with hades originate if they cannotbe found in the Hebrew scriptures?
"The term is not in the OT, but the concept is."

Do you have a verse or two to support this?

How did Lazarus merit going to Abraham's Bosom?

"Faith/repentance towards God."

Which verse in the account supports this?

Why didn't the rich man go to Abraham's Bosom?

"Lack of the above"

That's not the reason Abraham gives. The only reasoning is: Good now, bad later.

Didn't he demonstrate genuine moral concern for his lost brothers despite his overwhelming pain?

"Maybe, but I don't see why that means he escapes punishment."

Punishment for what?

Don't both the good and the bad go to hell (hades/sheol)and if so, why didn't Lazarus go there? (Or did he?)Gen.42:38 Ps.16:9-10 Job !4:13 Acts 2:26,27
Yes they do, and Lazarus did go there.

You got that right. :0)

Did the rich man really lift up his literal eyes in hell and was his literal tongue parched by literal flames?
I'd lean toward saying "yes" but even if taken non-literally, the story still shows that the unbelieving experience punishment in the next life.

The story is literal....because that is the way it would have been understood by the Pharisees and the common people.

Why would the rich man merely ask for a drop of water if it would not even begin to cool his tongue?

Knowing it would be too much to be asked to be set free completely, he asked for the solace of one drop of water.

Can't legitimately get into the rich man's head....but one drop would certainly not bring solace of any kind.

Did the rich man actually see and plead with literal Abraham?

Yes.

Ok.

Does that mean that those in hell catch the attention of and converse with those in heaven?

No, both the rich man and Abraham were in sheol.

Excellent. So are you saying that the people currently in the bad side of hell can communicate with those on the other side?

Could heaven be an enjoyable place if this account representswhat literally happens in the afterlife?

See answer to last question

OK, could hell be an enjoyable place for the righteous as they see and hear the cries of the tormented?

What do you think the point of this passage might be if itis a literal story?

Reversal of fortune in next life; riches don't save.

Perfect. Then may you be blessed each day with disease pain and sorrow in this life. :o)

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi Ding,

Assuming that this passage actually represents "historical narration", leaves us grappling with some rather difficult questions.

- Was Lazarus literally in Abraham's Bosom?

- Where did the designation “ Abraham’s Bosom ” and the

torments associated with hades originate if they cannot

be found in the Hebrew scriptures?

- How did Lazarus merit going to Abraham's Bosom?

- Why didn't the rich man go to Abraham's Bosom?

Didn’t he demonstrate genuine moral concern for

his lost brothers despite his overwhelming pain?

- Don’t both the good and the bad go to hell (hades/sheol)

and if so, why didn't Lazarus go there? (Or did he?)

Gen.42:38 Ps.16:9-10 Job !4:13 Acts 2:26,27

- Did the rich man really lift up his literal eyes in hell and

was his literal tongue parched by literal flames?

- Why would the rich man merely ask for a drop of water if

it would not even begin to cool his tongue?

- Did the rich man actually see and plead with literal Abraham?

-Does that mean that those in hell catch the attention of and

converse with those in heaven?

- Could heaven be an enjoyable place if this account represents

what literally happens in the afterlife?

- What do you think the point of this passage might be if it

is a literal story?

Rather than trying to answer these seeming difficulties, I think it is important to ask some preliminary questions in the light of Pharisaic beliefs about the afterlife. The Pharisees were the hellfire preaches of the day; they were the ones that taught that angels carried the righteous to a place on the right side of Hades they called "Abraham's Bosom" and the wicked to the left side of Hades to be tortures by wicked angels. They even partitioned Hades by a great gulf. Now where did they get these detailed ideas? And why would Jesus tell their extra-biblical story back to them? Would He be trying to scare them with their own story? I certainly don't think so.

That Jesus did employ satire to undermine the respect the people had for their self-righteous religious authorities is well documented in the gospels.  Examples of this include, Matthew 9:13, where Jesus exempts the Pharisees from His redemptive plan because He only came for sinners, not “the righteous” and again in Luke 13:13 where Jesus ironically expresses that a prophet cannot possibly perish anywhere except in Jerusalem. Also in Matthew 22:23-33, Jesus silences the Sadducees on the question of the resurrection by expanding upon the nature of angels (verse 30). I don’t think for a moment that Jesus was seriously trying to convince the Sadducees of something they did not believe in by elaborating upon something else they equally dismissed as nonexistent.

The question is this: What evidence is there that suggests that the Lazarus and the Rich Man account is "parody"?

Vander

169

Rich Man and Lazarus

by Ding in

i have never understood the watchtower's explanation of the rich man and lazarus story jesus told in luke 16. of course, they don't believe jesus is talking about what happens in an "afterlife" after people die.. but from the watchtower's point of view:.

1. who are the five brothers?.

2. why can't lazarus go witness to them?

Vanderhoven7

Hi

I believe that the Lazarus and Rich Man account is neither "historical narration" (being literally impossible) nor "parable" (unless a moral lesson about wealth sharing is invented). Instead I see this account as satirical; in particular, a parody. To establish that this is the literary form employed by the Lord, there must be clear evidence that:

a. a common or "well known story line is being imitated".

b. irony is employed; that the story’s outcome is changed such

that there is clear “incongruity between the actual result

of a sequence of events and the expected result”

c. the unexpected results "highlight human stupidity" or corruption.

d. "a comic end is served", the purpose of which is to cause listeners

"to detach sympathies from certain people (groups), to judge their

actions and to see the absurdity in their behaviour.."

I believe it can be clearly demonstrated that The Rich Man and Lazarus account satisfies these criteria and fits the mold of parody rather nicely.

Vander

31

For believers, how does God discipline those he loves?

by journey-on in

jw
friends

when i was a jw, i thought this referred to private reproof, public reproof, or disfellowshipping.

in light of a recent conversation concerning the true meaning of justice and the balance between mercy and judgment, i would like to know what your thoughts are regarding his disciplinary "methods" and heb.

12..

Vanderhoven7

Hi Journey-on,

I'll take a crack at this...having been the subject of His harsh discipline after clear warnings. By experience, I know He can even use satan to try us.

By faith we know that God disciplines those in covenant relationship with Him for their own good, that they might be partakers of His holiness (i.e. conformity to Christ's image) as expressed in Hebrews 12.

He will not let His children get away with anything when it is time to learn the lessons He has for us; that because He loves us beyond measure as the cross declares so poignantly.

God knows exactly what we need to come to the place where we love/appreciate Him and what He has accomplished for us.

He never disciplines beyond our capacity to endure...but will provide a way of escape for us...even in the midst of discipline.

Often He will use His word to correct us....and/or His word to relieve/comfort us in the process.

Discipline is effective when we see the be-attitudes reflected in our walk. (i.e. mourning over our spiritual poverty and hungering after righteousness etc.).

The end of discipline is obedience of faith.

If only parents knew how to discipline (as opposed to punishing) we would have far healthier and happier homes.

But I digress.

Vander