Posts by Larsguy

17

Revelation Teaches Jesus is God

by JosephAlward in

i understand that jehovah's witnesses teach that jesus is not god, but the author of revelation seems to teach otherwise:.

yahweh speaking: "i am the alpha and the omega," says the lord god" (revelation 1:8).

more yahweh: "i am the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.

Larsguy

>>But note that Yahweh didn't say "I was dead but am now alive."

>>One can be "first and last" in more ways than one.

Yes. Thank-you for that insightful observation. 99% of the challenges to so-called contractions in scripture are based upon inadequate understanding of Biblical style or translation issues.

In this case, therefore, if we presume that God and Jesus are Father and Son and yet are both the "first and last", then that would suggest they share this "first and last" definition INDIVIDUALLY. But what could it mean? It sounds so grandiose in English, especially when they don't really have a good understanding of it and they say the "alpha" and the "omega" in English instead of the correct translation which would be the "A" and "Z".

ACTUAL EXPLANATION: So what does it mean when you're the A and Z of something, or the "beginning and end" of something? Simply that you're unique! Can that be said of Yahweh and Yeshua? YES! That's because God is unique being the only being not to have a beginning or an end, to be from everlastsing to everlasting. And Jesus is unique since he is the only creature directly created by God. He's the "only-begotton" son. So as far as spirit beings/creatures go, God is unique and Jesus is unique. They are the beginning and end of their "kind" or category.

So the designation of being the "alpha and omega" in the context of that culture would simply indicate that you were unique, the beginning and end of your kind which is equally applicable to both the Creator and the first-born son.

So again, Mr. Joseph Alward's problem comes from lack of insight and imagination. He sees a corner when really there is a beautiful curve.

But he's fun because he gets comments on various Bible topics which aren't brought up much. So I hope he keeps posting Biblical "errancy" issues which he probably just gets out of some book which came up with a lot of ill-applied errors to distract the unlearned.

Thanks Joseph!

LG

15

Bible Error: Where Did King Josiah Die?

by JosephAlward in

josiah, king of judah (640-609 b.c.

), was installed as king at the age of eight.

josiah attempted to restore the kingdom of david and was opposed by pharaoh necho of egypt in a battle at megiddo.

Larsguy

Hi Joseph,
For a moment there, I thought you had something and I was going to congratulate you on an apparently contradiction I couldn't explain. That is, until I checked the original Hebrew and several other translations. Out of several of them, only one translates 2 Chronicles as "WHERE he died." All the others I saw simply say, "and he died" or that he died. Here are the various versions.

Funny to me you picked the version that when translated would seem to make an apparent contradiction, but the fact is the Bible doesn't say specifically that he died in Jerusalem. So apparently he died after he got into the other chariot and died before he got to Jerusalem, so there is no conflict.

Here are those other verses.

But you can consider it a contradiction if you want to.

By the way, here's another one for you that's even better.

In one place the Bible says there are "many gods and many lords" and in another place it says there is just "one god". That seems like a contradiction to me, so why not use that one? It's just as good as any of the others.

=============

His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in [one of] the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.
Available Translations and Versions for 2Ch 35:24

His servants therefore took him out of that chariot and put him in the second chariot that he had, and they brought him to Jerusalem. So he died, and was buried in one of the tombs of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. NKJV Copyright 1982 Thomas Nelson

So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in the second chariot which he had, and brought him to Jerusalem where he died and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. NASB copyright 1995 Lockman Foundation

So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josi'ah. RSV copyright info

His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was buried in [one of] the sepulchers of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.

And his servants remove him from the chariot, and cause him to ride on the second chariot that he hath, and cause him to go to Jerusalem, and he dieth, and is buried in the graves of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem are mourning for Josiah,

And his servants took him out from the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.

So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried in the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah.

So his servants took him out of the chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had, and brought him to Yerushalayim; and he died, and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Yehudah and Yerushalayim mourned for Yoshiyahu.

qui transtulerunt eum de curru in alterum currum qui sequebatur eum more regio et asportaverunt in Hierusalem mortuusque est et sepultus in mausoleo patrum suorum et universus Iuda et Hierusalem luxerunt eum

THANKS, JOSEPH for an ALMOST interpretation...

28

Bible Error: Jesus Cures the Leper

by JosephAlward in

the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.

they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.

here is the evidence:.

Larsguy

Hi Joseph,
I have no explanation or excuse for you beyond what I told you. You seem to want to complicate this situation.

All I said was that the gospel writers often gave separate accounts in a similar manner but that you had to pay attention to the details which let you know they were separate events. There are other examples of this.

So if one gospel spoke of a leper being healed before Peter's mother-in-law was healed, and another one afterward, then the gospels are merely clearing up the details of these two separate events. What's the big deal with Jesus healing a leper before and after he cured Peter's mother-in-law.

The ACADEMIC reality, though, is that if the gospels are speaking of separate events then there is no contradiction or ERROR as you claim. Now you may not agree with that, but you can't prove it's not true. So it's just your interpretation against my interpretation at this point, with your biased interpretation finding an error here in two separate gospels that you have confused over the same event.

So you have no grounds for dismissing anything here academically.

To put it on your level, Joseph, this is a LEGITIMATE LOOPHOLE and I'm using it! GOT IT?

So find yourself another ERROR that you can make stick because this one ain't happening for you.

You need to do more than just try and propagandize beyond your lack of literary expertise.

As far as me being anointed and all that and understanding scripture, it is apparent that you are the one who is confused and befuddled by the gospels, but I'm having no problems whatsoever. And that's because as the Bible says, those of a fleshly sort can't understand the scriptures anyway, so I don't expect you to do anything but be confused and annoyed by the gospels because it is not granted for you to understand these things on an anointed prophet's level.

So the the end of this is simply that I told you these were two separate events and you say they are not, this is just a mistake, and that's fine. You're entitled to your wrong opinion like anyone else. But it's not changing my mind on this matter whatsoever. I know you're wrong and I'm right and you just have to deal with that.

But the fact that you have resorted to criticizing me on other bases other than dealing with the original question proves I made my point.

As far as me being an anointed prophet not meeting your standards, that's up to you and your choice and your opinion. Sorry I don't meet your standards. But there is not ONE SINGLE BIBLICAL ITEM that you can win an argument with me on. You've lost this argument and you will lose all others, because you simply don't have the ability to refute the scriptures.

And that's basically all I have to do as a prophet is tell you how the LOOPHOLES work and I'm done.

I gave you an explanation of how to get around your invented "error"; you don't want to accept my explanation. That's not my problem.

I proved you wrong. You lost your argument. So I'm done.

It's been fun.

L.G.

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

Larsguy

Hi Joseph,
I noted that I didn't have to answer your question since I needed only one example of this style in the gospels. I just told you that it was a common Jewish style to hide these references but I didn't feel like bothering giving you any since I know you'll just argue about them.

But since you INSIST, I'll give you one Biblical example and one "secular Jewish" example:

Because of the apparent chronology revisions during ancient times, the Bible seems to purposely make their chronology confusing during the Divided Kingdom period. The reason why might be because if the chronology is confounding and confusing then it makes it more difficult to revise. Furthermore, a complex chronology that nobody understands doesn't seem to contradict the ever-going changes in other chronologies. Here's an example of what I mean.

The Jewish kings were often co-rulers. The father would retire early while retaining his title and his son would start actively ruling as "king" while his father was still alive. This was done by an official ceremony. This provided the context for a king who succeeded his father while still alive to have "become king" twice; once when he became the official king-co-ruler and once again when his father died and he was coronated as the official king.

So the Bible writers took advantage of this to weave a complex pattern of references to these kingships, contrasting the chronology between the two kingdoms.

Here's your example:

Jehorum, the son of Ahab is said to have "become king" on two separate dates. One was in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat and the other was in the second year of Joram the son of Jehoshaphat. But elsewhere, we learn that Joram became king in the 5th year of Jehoram. Is that a contradiction? No.

What this gives us are both of Jehorams "King" dates. That is, he became co-ruler in the 18th of Jehoshaphat and his father died in his sixth year since he became king again in the second of Joram who became king his Jehoram's fifth year. In other words, he became king in his sixth year as sole ruler.

But in order to align that right you also have to have the right alignment of Jehoshaphat's rule and when Joram became co-ruler with his father as well. So it's very, very complex! But if you sat down and worked it out, you'd be able to figure it all out by all the references. Most persons haven't been able to figure it out without presuming some empty gaps in the kingships, because most don't realize that the co-ruler was called the "king" and there were co-rulerships. But it should be clear that the Bible is not straightforward about this chronology and is purposely making this complex in order to confound outsiders who might want to revise or suppress these historical records.

NOW, Josephus does this many times in his works, especially since he was aware of this little play on words with respect to these kingships.

Thus in APION we find him making a vague reference to the Jews being in exile for 70 years at 1:19 and then later a reference to Cyrus beoming king after "fifty years" of desolation of Jerusalem. Now taken as it is, it seems that he contradicts himself in 1:21 when he says the city was desolated for a period of "fifty years". But this is a critical contradiction since it was just in the previous paragraph that he again asserted a 70-year desolation period.

So is Josephus, like the gospel writers, just a another dumb historian? Who can't make up his mind if the Jerusalem was desolated for 70 vs 50 years? Or is there some secret hidden meaning here?

Well....we can reflect back onto the Bible's use of the co-rulership and see if that might not solve the problem here. Well, of course, it does. How so? Because Cyrus became king of Persia twenty years before he conquered Babylon. The revised dating is 559 and 539BCE, a 20-year interval. Of course, in case you haven't noticed, there is a 20-year interval between 70 years and 50 years. Therefore, to correct the apparently contradiction, it need only be true that Jerusalem was desolated for fifty years AND seventy Years at the time Cyrus became king, either in Persia and/or Babylon. And that is exactly the case. Cyrus became king of Persia 50 years after the desolation began and again when he conquered Babylon he started counting a new kingship 20 years later.

So one way to look at this is that Josephus is not contradicing himself at all, but playing the "kingship" word game and making a reference to the two kingship dates of Cyrus, which are 20 years apart. Thus his 70 year reference and 50 year reference tell us that Cyrus became king twice, 20 years apart, 50 years and 70 years after Jerusalem's desolation began.

See.

And I have other examples of this. But I don't expect you, who have proven to be totally biased, to pay any attention to this.

But I have provided you with the example and this is enough of a basis to suggest that the Bible and Jewish writers do seem to present contradictory texts which, in fact, attempt to hide information from outsiders, and the gospels are simply doing the same thing. This is VERY JEWISH if you know and have study Jewish style in literature.

So I know what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about. And that doesn't seem like it's going to change anytime soon.

At any rate, it's not because I don't have the examples that I didn't bother presenting them, not that I needed to to prove my point. But I wasn't just making something up, this was truly based upon many other examples and is well-founded.

I hope that satisfied your answer, when actually, I was not interested in satisfying your answer but merely showing others who might be reading this that your claim that I didn't have any examples meant I was bluffing or something like that. I don't need to bluff, I have the FACTS. You need to bluff because you have nothing.

Have a nice day Joseph. Try again harder next time.

By the way, the Bible IS TRUE and Christ IS real and you're going to have to pay for all this deception you're putting out. Don't think that on Judgment Day you can pretend ignorance. You're being far too dishonest about your arguments to claim you don't know any better. So I hope you consider that "every unprofitable word" you speak you will be held accountable for. I'm sure you've read that scripture so I don't have to quote the verse, do I?

Have a nice day.

L.G.

28

Bible Error: Jesus Cures the Leper

by JosephAlward in

the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.

they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.

here is the evidence:.

Larsguy

Joseph, you're not doing your JOB! You're far too desperate.

You know very well there is more than one way to interpret the Bible or even to look at the same facts. Sorry, but you're not in a position to dismiss another person's solution or viewpoint of this situation just because it astounds you.

But on that note, there is a Bible verse that says specifically that people of the flesh cannot understand the things of the spirit and it completely confuses them.

So, of course, you are confused and think you're seeing errors becuase you are looking at the scriptures in a fleshly way. Those of us with spirit see it differently.

But beyond that, simply from an academic point of view, you cannot prove that the different accounts in this case was a reference to two separate healings of two separate lepers, even though I told you the gospels in particular do this often with parallel accounts so they can hide the details and background facts.

And it's working very well. You're trying to find the "logical" explanation or the most "reasonable" explanation and don't realize that the gospels have gone OUT OF THEIR WAY to fool you in a deliberate manner.

Here's another critically good example. When Jesus said: "Nobody knows the DAY nor HOUR" the master would arrive so keep on the watch. He even said you don't know if he will arrive in a certain watch.

But clearly, read in a normal context this would be taken that the precise timing of the second coming would be something that would be a surprise to many and that it is not a definite time. I'll grant that.

But the fact is, the disciples knew already precisely the year the Messiah would arrive since the Bible prescribes the year of the second coming just as it prescribed the year of the first coming (i.e. 483 years past the "word going forth to rebuild Jerusalem").

So what you have here is a SPECIFIC but misleading statement. That is, while Christ is saying "Nobody knows the DAY nor HOUR" he is not saying that the MONTH and YEAR are not clearly prescribed---make that--secretly prescribed in scripture!

But he doesn't contradict himself when he refers to the DAY nor HOUR.

So you see, this statement would sort of keep the general public and unbelievers rather relaxed about the chronology in the scriptures thinking nobody know when the Messiah would arrive, but most people extrapolating that it could be any generation or decade that's in doubt, when really, it is SPECIFICALLY just the DAY and HOUR since the MONTH and YEAR are derivable from scripture.

So that's what I'm trying to tell you. The spiritual minded who know scripture would know that the precise year and one out of 4 possible months would be the limits to when the Messiah would arrive and so his statement "Nobody knows the day nor hour" in that context becomes a SPECIFIC statement to specifically mean the DAY and HOUR since the month and year were known to them. But for someone not calculating the month and year ahead of time, this statement might seem to suggest a longer period of flexibility other than 1 to 24 hours.

The academic reality, though, is that you have a specifically true statement that could easily be misinterpreted and thus the premise that it was intentionally spoken that way to throw the doubters off track. But that Jesus would do something like that is clearly stated in scripture since his attitude was not to give information to the outsiders but to keep the sacred secrets to his followers. He was always excluding them.

So you're confounded because you think the gospel writers were simply somewhat unschooled and incompetent or haphazard about relating these events rather than believing the gospels are a complex revelation of secrets that can only be understood by the anointed ones, EVEN THOUGH JESUS SAYS SO!

So you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER, to dismiss that premise, in this case, that this is simply relating to two separate events of healing a leper that were similar. You can't accept that answer.

But instead, you decide that I'm wrong, you're right, and then based upon your OPTIONAL presumption that the rest of the Bible must be wrong as well. But you're doing it without having proven your point. Your basis for dismissing the rest of the Bible is based upon your OPINION but not proven error.

So, therefore, you're just a JOKE to us since you've proven nothing. You didn't do your homework.

So it's fine you believe the Bible is erroneous and not the word of God or whatever, based upon your personal beliefs, but not dismissible by ERROR since you've proven none.

So dismiss the Bible because you don't like it, that's fine. But not because you've invented some error and you're using that as a basis to LOGICALLY and responsibly not believe.

Joseph, you'll just have to do better than finally simply dimissing me as being WRONG and stupid, while we're presuming you're correct and smart and based upon THAT, we can proceed to dismiss all the scriptures. It doesn't work that way. You started out pointing out an alleged ERROR and you didn't prove your point so you can't proceed past that, sorry.

So all I can say is you're entitled to your own disbeliefs and I'm entitled to mine, but so far I've found no ERRORS in the scriptures and nothing you have brought up so far has proven an error so we're back at square one: You on the outside, me on the inside.

Anyway, this is FUN to me, so keep em coming!!!

L.G.

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

Larsguy

Hi Joseph,
First of all, on the matter of proving whether or not there is a special "gospel style" in presenting certain details or not and having to prove that based upon other writings, I don't have to do any such thing. I'm TELLING YOU DIRECTLY this is the gospel style, which could be unique, and since you can't disprove that matter, it's just an issue of my view versus your view. The fact that you're incapable of accepting this view is moot. The only issue of note, therefore, is that you recognize that that view allows me to dismiss hundreds of your so-called "errors". So my word to you is that "it works for me and my acceptance of the gospel" so that's the end of it. You can find as many errors as you want.

But, in fact, I can prove that the Jews in particular did this sort of thing in their writings, one of them being Josephus. But I'm not even going to bother giving you the examples since I'm sure you will then say: "Well show us someone besides Josephus and any others who did this, then I'll believe." In other words, I don't need to meet your CRITERIA to prove what is evident. I only need one example of this parallel detail in Jewish writings which is the gospels, so that's that. You can either accept it or not. It matters not to me. But just because you find in one gospel where Jesus said one thing to a "Mary Magdalene" and you find in another place he said something else, it's your own folly to presume a scribal error without considering these might be two different women and two different incidences. So you can't prove the error.

Now on the point of why God wouldn't want the outsiders to understand the nature of Judas' death or the significance of that point, I don't need to comment on it beyond the fact that tripping up people like you who want to find error with God's works is very much his nature. He likes to trip up the "wise in their own cunning" and to show the foolishness of worldly wisdom.

So he trips you up with these parallel accounts and having the gospels speak of similar accounts but separately so that you think there is an error. A lot of things can be true or false based upon perception.

For instance, if you're walking in a straight line around the earth that intersects with a certain city, say Jerusalem, do you realize that someone might say you're walking AWAY from Jerusalem and someone might say you're walking TOWARD Jerusalem, depending upon their disposition. You can always fly to New York via Hawaii, Hong Kong and Spain, you know. You'll eventually get there, right?

Or if you asked me my age and I told you: "I'm going on 90" that would be true whether I'm 89 or 3. Because everybody under 90 is "going on 90", technically. So while it may be DECEPTIVE and purposely so, it's still not a LIE. Only if I were 90 or over would it be an UN-TRUE statement.

So you have to realize that the Jews, for most of their late history, were under the control of pagan powers and even though they had their own writing and language, they had to find ways to communicate secrets and information without it being privy to their captors. People event these kinds of "tongue-in-cheek" ways of conveying information all the time, like masters of a house talking in a way so that the servants don't understand what is going on, etc.

So a literary style that provides some private information in plain sight of others is not uncommon. Why you have a problem of giving the gospels this benefit of the doubt, therefore, is simply bias on your part. You're trying to apply simplistic concepts to an extremely complex work and so your are finding problems with it. But the problem is you simply don't understand what you're doing.

But please don't STOP! This is amusing and fun to the anointed Biblicalists.

But I tell you one thing; you make me glad I'm an informed "insider". Knowing scripture is truly a wonderful joy.

Have a nice day.

L.G.

28

Bible Error: Jesus Cures the Leper

by JosephAlward in

the author of mark thinks that jesus cured the leper after he cured simon peters mother-in-law, but the author of matthew says just the opposite: he thinks that jesus cured the leper before he cured the mother-in-law.

they both cannot be right, so the bible is in error.

here is the evidence:.

Larsguy

Hi Joseph,
How many times have I told you that the GOSPEL STYLE was designed to hide details like this?

It purposely uses parallel events that vary just a little bit which makes you think they are the same event but in fact, they are specifically two different but similar events.

Case in point is where it says that Simon will deny Jesus three times before a cock crows, and in another place it says he will deny him three times before a cock crows twice.

Well if you follow the details closely enough, you'll see that BOTH statements are true. That is, Peter denied Jesus at least three times before a cock crowed once and then another three times before a cock had a chance to crow twice!

Just for your background, after Peter denied Jesus a third time while in the courtyard, he heard the cock crow and looked at Jesus and remembered what he said and distressed, he head for the door to weep. But this was a large house and to get from the courtyard to outside he had to go through various passages ways including a gate house to get outside where various groups were congregated. So it happened, from the time the cock crowed once until it crowed again, which might have been just a few minutes, Peter ended up denying Jesus to each of the groups he had to pass through to get outside so that by the time he finally did get outside a cock had crowed a second time and he had denied Jesus another three times.

But the way the information is presented, it is clear it was purposely set up to be similar to force you to understand the details.

The same thing with the three Mary Magdalenes who were around Jesus who came to the grave at three different times. The Bible could have simply told us there were three of them right up front, then when we read the accounts we would have figured out when each of them went to the grave and with whom. But the way the gospel is written it almost seems like a variation of the same event. But it's not.

Therefore, by doing this, and keeping us in tune to the SPECIFIC DETAILS, we learn more information that is hidden.

So in your example, based upon the above, the first presumption would be that Jesus cured one leper before he healed Peter's mother-in-law and another one afterward, under similar circumstances.

So you see, the casual reader would not have noticed anything. The negative reader, like yourself, might presume there is an error. But the trained Biblicalist knows that this was just a way the gospel had of showing that Jesus healed two lepers, one before and one after this event.

But there are lots of fun examples of this in scripture where some people get confused over things because they miss critical details that prove that Jesus is talking about two different things but with very similar details.

At any rate, just knowing the gospels do this on purpose, we would not be able to qualify this as an ERROR and there is probably some other place in scripture that will prove these were two different lepers he healed.

It's no different than if you knew two women named "Mary" who you saw at the mall, one at 1:00 p.m. at Macy's and one at 2:00 p.m. at Starbucks. But two sets of different friends who knew only one the Mary's asked you: "Did you see Mary?" and you said: "Yes, at 1:00....". But you would know which Mary that person was talking about. But later if you told someone else you saw Mary at a different time and place and they made a comparison of your statements, they'd think you were confused or lying, when in fact, you were talking about two different Marys. The only thing missing is a statement that spelled it out to you that: There were two Marys that I saw, one at 1:00 and one a 2:00. Then there would be no conflict. But the absence of that statment is the point of Jewish style becuase you should be able to tell by the different times and circumstances these were two different Marys, IF, in fact, you consider the person to be truthful and not confused.

So the fact that you think the gospel writers are incompetent and oncfused most of the time is why you are seeing ERRORS when, in fact, there is no credible error, just your lack of understanding gospel style. And as I said, Jesus himself pointedly noted that he spoke in a way to hide things from the outsiders and to show secrets to his followers.

So again, you're saying NOTHING about an "error" because you are presuming this is the same leper; when it isn't.

So you're just all excited about all these "errors" and everything and we "insiders" are just laughing at you because we know you don't know what you're doing nor understand the complexity of the gospels.

So we don't mind you are finding these errors since it trips you up and we were not going to share any sacred secrets with you anyway. But just know that for us, your argument has nil effect and we're just ignoring you, mildly amused that you are learning some detail of scripture; which is more than many witnesses, by the way.

So if you're REALLY HONEST, I'll show you some DOOZIES that even JWs can't accept because they don't believe scripture. In fact, I'd like to get your opinion about them if you like.

Anyway, for the record, this is just the gospel's way of letting us know Jesus cured two lepers that day. That's all. No error.
But I do sympathize with you; the gospels are not that friendly to outsiders, so it's okay. We understand your disposition.

L.G.

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

Larsguy

Hi Joseph,

>>>>Larsguy speaks of being anointed and of communicating with other "anointed" ones. What do JW's think "anointed" means, and how does one determine if one is anointed, or not?

Jehovah's witnesses have within their organization basically those who place themselves into two categories; one called the "anointed" or "heavenly class" and the other called the "other sheep" or the "earthly class." Now this needs correcting but this simply deals with JWs and your question.

The nature of the two groups are obvious, one is supposed to have a heavenly hope and the other an earthly hope in paradise. The "anointed" group are the ones they associate with the 144,000 referenced in revelation. So "anointed" is the loose organizational term they apply to those who feel they are part of the heavenly group. But it is sort of official since I think on their Publisher's Record Card (cards which keep track of their baptism, membership, etc.) one is supposed to check which group they are in and it is referred to as "anointed" or "other sheep".

Now as far as knowing if one is of the anointed or not, the simply say that a degree of "holy spirit" communicates to them in a subtle way that they are of the "anointed" and that's it. They know who they are. The other sheep group don't get a feeling they are of the other sheep, they just have the absence of a heavenly calling.

But in the witness subculture some of the comparisons talked about that seems to be generally true is that for one, the Bible reads differently for the anointed once he becomes anointed. It seems to light up and verses seem to be more directly pointed to them. So that is a specific difference. So the Bible becomes more of a communication device for the anointed if I'm not overstating. Other than that things are about the same.

When one of the anointed dies, though, usually they indicate at the funeral this person died faithfully and is now "in heaven" (which ain't true, but...), whereas if an other sheep dies, they say they will be resurrected later in the new order during the millennium (which also isn't precisely true, but..).

The critical significance in this group and this setting, though, is that the anointed are supposed to have more advanced understanding of scripture and be involved with their eventual positions as king-priests who rule during the millennium. So a lot of things pertain to them.

Furthermore, the "evil slave" comes out of the "anointed" group, those who make up God's temple, so there is a spiritual battle more focussed among the faithful and unfaithful anointed ones in the organization.

It's hard to perhaps explain, but for instance if I went to the Governing Body and gave them some Biblical correction, it would make a difference if I told them if I were of the anointed or not. I won't take that any further, but they would understand the difference. An "anointed" one can be more of a "prophet" or representative of the heavenly organization than someone who did not feel they were "anointed".

Now this might be something to amuse and entertain outsiders, but it is a reality to this organization, and in this JW-based discussion group that's what most will understand when you say "I'm anointed", whether they believe or not.

One more thing, is that if you're "anointed" the stakes are higher for you to be honest and truthful as far as the Bible is concerned and it is assumed the Bible and spiritual advancement is your primary goal so it's more critical if an anointed one is ignoring counsel than perhaps one of the "other sheep" class since they should know better and their position in heaven as a king-priest hangs in the balance.

Finally, ultimately, those of the "anointed" are as staetd expected to be kings and priests and be part of the Bride Class of 144,000 and so it is a higher spiritual rank than non 144K members; but at the same time, there is more spiritual responsibility as well. God expects more of the anointed than of others.

That's the basics. I wouldn't feel a need to elaborate beyond this, especially since it's such a subjective issue for the individual.

Of course, Joseph, if you had to ask that, you must have never been a witness. In which case I should warn you that witnesses have a built-in insulation to most of your arguments. The WTS has been very good at counteracting most of these challenges, many of which are baseless or exaggerations based upon bent interpretations.

L.G.

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

Larsguy

>>>If Larsguy knows why this information should be kept from us, or why he thinks God wanted us to guess what happened to Judas, I hope he will enlighten the rest of us.

Hi Joseph, how are you?

Just to keep you on track and in context here. My original argument was regarding the gospel STYLE of writing and Jewish sacred writings in general. These writings, probably to be self-protective, often make indirect statements that sometimes seem to contradict themselves, but in reality in the background of context knowledge reveals additional information not that noticeable to the casual reader. Then you seemed to make the point about the gospels being rather straightforward and there being no evidence that such complexity was employed, at which time I pointed out to you that Jesus directly stated to his followers the reason he spoke in parables, in incidentally, was to keep knowledge from the non-believers and have understanding for his followers.

So now you want to bring it back SPECIFICALLY to why Jesus would want to keep Judas' manner of death a secret just for his followers and that's not my point was. The way Judas' death is related in scriptures has to do with the separate point of how the Jewish writing style in general seemed to use separate, specific pieces of information which when combined revealed additional information. They didn't tend to spell out the whole story to you in detail repeatede over five times like we're used to.

In this case, one scripture could have simply said: "Judas went out and hanged himself by tying a rope on a tree branch overhanging a cliff where lots of people hang themselves and upon throwing himself headlong over the cliff, the rope snapped him back against some jagged rocks in such a violent manner as to burst his guts open."

And that would have been the end of that.

Then...when we'd read in one place about a "hanging" we'd say, oh; and then in another place about his throwing himself over a cliff and his guts bursting out, we'd say, oh yeah.

So the point is, when you often find statements that seem to contradict each other or not quite harmonize in a simple way, you have to use your mind to extrapolate the added detail when both staements, both true, are combined.

So in this case, it would just be the common style of Jewish writing and the gospels in particular that might have confused persons regarding the Judas hanging. But in other cases, a more direct effort to exclude ousiders from sacred truth was employed which simply contradicts the notion that the gospels are not complex but simply erroneous.

L.G.

39

Bible Error: How Did Judas Die?

by JosephAlward in

matthew says that judas hanged himself, while the writer in acts says that he fell and his guts spilled out.

both of these accounts cannot be true.

either one is, or neither is, and this means that the bible is not error-free.

Larsguy

Hi Mox,
It's not that simple, but what makes you think I'm giving away any sacred secrets to unbelievers. I'm preaching to Christ's anointed ones who have access to this board.

On the other hand, there are things in the Bible that condemn false apostates and part of the message Christian anointed ones give is sentencing and condemnation notice to the wicked.

So posting the information has many purposes though critical advanced truth will be accepted by the true followers and rejected by those who can't understand it.

So I'm really not trying to convert anyone. I'm not really evangelizing in the driver's lane really. Most of my posts here simply expose false teachings and put people on notice that God is about to bring about drastic changes in the world. But advanced understanding is put out for the other anointed ones, not to those who can't relate to it.

Good point though..

Have a nice day.

LG